Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FRENCH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Mr. Speaker: Through the French Ambassador I have received the following communication, which I think I ought to read out to the House:
MR. SPEAKER,
The delegation of members of the National Assembly and the Council of the Republic which the British Parliament kindly invited to the United Kingdom have just returned.
They have been touched by the warm reception given them by the House of Lords and the House of Commons; by the kindness of the Franco-British Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in arranging a number of most interesting visits showing various aspects of British life; as well as by the many friendly demonstrations they have everywhere received.
Our members have particularly appreciated the honour which their Majesties were good enough to pay to the French Parliament in receiving them at Buckingham Palace.
The numerous friendly contacts which our members have made with their British colleagues and the mutual understanding with which various points of view have been discussed, will, without doubt, make our Parliamentary collaboration to which we all look for the future democracy and the welfare of our two countries, productive of happy results in the future.
We hope soon to resume this collaboration in Paris when we may, in our turn, be able to give a welcome to those of our British colleagues who would care to visit the French Parliament
May we offer you, Mr. Speaker, our warmest appreciation for your welcome and assure you of our gratitude and deep respect.
That is signed by M. G. Monnerville, President of the Council of the Republic and M. Herriot, President of the National Assembly.

Hon. Members: Hear hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT FLYING OPERATIONS, FORD

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the hon. Member for Chichester may expect a reply to any of his letters to his Department, dated, respectively, 1st May, 5th June, 16th June, 8th July and 21st July, all dealing with the question of night-flying training at Ford Aerodrome, Sussex.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): As I informed the hon. Member verbally some time ago, I am not yet able to hold out any hope of the cessation of night-flying operations at Ford. While I regret the disturbance which such operations are bound to cause wherever they take place, they are in fact a necessary part of the training of the officers and men connected with naval aviation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he was exploring the possibility of transferring these night-flying training operations to some other locality? Can he say what is the result of his explorations?

Mr. Dugdale: I regret that, as indicated in this reply, my explorations have not so far been successful. Wherever night-flying operations take place, they are bound to cause disturbance. Another complication is that we have not adequate facilities for night-flying operations at other aerodromes which could take the place of those at Ford.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Admiralty going to do nothing whatever to ameliorate the conditions of these unfortunate people, who are disturbed night after night, and can get no sleep in that part of the country?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that our Services are suffering from great inconveniences, and will he assure us that their training facilities are not limited by Questions asked in this House, bearing in mind that the week-end should be kept free, but that normal training should take place?

Oral Answers to Questions — CABLE AND WIRELESS (SUPERVISORY STAFF)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the offers made to employees of Cable and Wireless employed in the supervisory grade in substitution for the profit-sharing bonus previously enjoyed by them; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government when this concern was nationalised, he will arrange for this offer to be increased so as to prevent a reduction in the earnings of this section of the staff.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Yes, Sir. I am aware of these offers. I think that this matter can best be pursued in the negotiations between the company and its employees which, I understand, have not yet been carried to a conclusion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the assurances that were given to the staff of this company that their position would not be made worse by nationalisation; and is he aware that in the case of the grade to which I invite his attention in this Question, the net effect is a reduction of salary of something in the nature of 30 per cent.?

Mr. Paling: I think that both parties to these negotiations are aware of the promises, and the whole matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the pledge given by His Majesty's Government, is, in fact, honoured?

Mr. Paling: I do not at this moment feel inclined to interfere. The negotiations are being carried on through the ordinary channels and in the ordinary way, and I think I would be ill-advised to interfere.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman be certain to keep the incentive motive going in this particular industry?

Mr. Paling: I suppose that is always one of the considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Bombing Ranges, Selsey

Mr. Joynson-Hieks: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now relieve the apprehensions of, and potential disturbance to, agriculturalists, residents, workers and visitors in the Selsey area by discontinuing its use for bombing ranges, pending a final decision in the matter after full inquiry.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The use of the Earnley range has been suspended until a final decision about its future can be made. The range at Bracklesham Bay is needed for important training and development work, conducted jointly by the Royal Navy and the R.A.F. Its use has, however, been much restricted, and the beach is open to the public at all hours of the day and night.

Exercises, West Wittering

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Air under what authority members of His Majesty's Forces evacuated the public from the beaches at West Wittering on the afternoon of 31st July; whether he is aware of the consternation and inconvenience caused to the public in that area on the same morning by the exercises of a large number of Meteor aircraft flying at a height of only some hundreds of feet; and what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of these incidents.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: On the afternoon of 30th July, an officer asked the public to leave the beach at West Wittering. In so doing, he acted without authority, and I have ascertained that he was in fact unaware of the orders now in force. I greatly regret his mistake, and I have taken steps to ensure that it shall not happen again. On 31st July, Meteor aircraft took part in a special exercise with the Royal Navy, in which low flying was required.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Secretary of State give any assurance to the people in this locality, who, very largely, are industrial workers and have gone there for a holiday, that they will be able to get some rest and recreation free from the eternal disturbance of the air from low flying aircraft which drop bombs and other impedimenta all over the countryside?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I know there was one incident when two smoke bombs were dropped. I am in correspondence with the hon. Member about it and hope soon to give him a final reply. For the rest, the low flying is avoided, if possible, and I think the nuisance on these beaches is now reduced to the absolute minimum consistent with the necessary training.

Mr. Bing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that disturbances of this nature are absolutely necessary in view of the excessive concentration of troops of all arms which we have in this country at present?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS (TRADE UNION NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are the terms of the policy directive issued by his department to the managements of B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C. or B.S.A.A.C. to the effect that their trade union negotiations should take a particular line or be conducted in a particular way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No such directive has been issued and my noble Friend has no intention of interfering with the established machinery for such negotiations which, in the case of civil aviation is the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the views of the British Air Line Pilots' Association in any of these negotiations?

Mr. Lindgren: The organisation referred to is a member of the National Joint Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (OCCUPATION FORCES)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the U.S. Government concerning occupation forces in Germany with a view to securing a more equitable distribution of the burden of armed manpower in proportion to population and ability to pay the cost.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): No representations have been made.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister state why no representations have been made and whether it is a fact that the occupation Forces of Britain in Germany are twice as large as those of the Americans; also, has his attention been drawn to statements by American staff officers in Washington last week to the effect that the British Government are maintaining too large occupation Forces in Germany?

Mr. McNeil: I hope that I did not mislead my hon. Friend. No representations have been made. I should not think that His Majesty's Government would necessarily accept advice upon the disposition of our Forces from an officer in another Force.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN OIL REFINERY (SOVIET OCCUPATION)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take regarding the seizure by the Russians of an oil-refining plant in Austria, the disposal of which is under discussion between the Allies.

Mr. McNeil: The British representatives on the Allied Council for Austria and Austrian Treaty Commission have protested against the occupation by Soviet troops of the Austrian Mineral Oil Works Company Refinery at Lobau on the night of 1st August to 2nd August. Furthermore the British Deputy Commissioner has stated that the Law of the Control Council for Germany quoted as a basis for the Soviet action has no application in Austria; further that reparations cannot be secured from property which is in joint British-American beneficial ownership. The United Kingdom representative on the Austrian Treaty Commission has stated that this unilateral action by the Soviet authorities is in total disregard of the discussions at the Treaty Commission on the question of what are, and what are not, German assets. The subject will be raised at the forthcoming meeting of the Allied Council in Vienna.

Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that so far no reply has been given by the Russians to these representations?

Mr. McNeil: A statement has been made quoting an authority for the action, the authority being, we think, only relevant to German procedure and not to Austrian procedure.

Mr. Granville Sharp: In view of the apparent mystery which surrounds the operation by the Russians of the Austrian mineral oil resources and oil refineries and the apparent failure to supply more than a small proportion of the Austrian oil requirements from Austrian oil resources, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend to continue to press the Russians to adopt his precept of putting their cards on the table face upwards.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government, quite properly I am sure, have been as concerned about Austrian interests in this and allied matters as they have been about their own and about the legality of any behaviour in this area where we are joint operatives.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister state whether this matter is being pressed through the Allied Control Commission, because I gathered from what he said that the protest had been made there but that the reply had been received from some other source?

Mr. McNeil: We are using three instruments where it is appropriate to apply pressure, one of which is the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (TOURIST DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent, or proposes to send, to the syndicate which has offered to acquire the Milk River Baths in Jamaica and develop them as a modern pleasure resort.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): This inquiry is at present being considered by the Government of Jamaica, with whom it rests to decide what response should be made to it.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that no obstacle will be put into the way either in Jamaica or by His Majesty's Government of any reasonable and legitimate schemes for the development of this very useful asset to the tourist trade?

Mr. Thomas: This question is one that must, I think, be left to the Government of Jamaica.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (RICE RATION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further statement to make on the rice situation in Malaya.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir, there has been no new development. All who are concerned with this problem are doing their best to obtain the largest possible quantities of rice for Malaya, consistent with the needs and claims of other rice-eating countries, and with proper regard to price. Every practicable step is also being taken to stimulate local production.

Mr. Gammans: Is the position the same as it was a few weeks ago when the people of Malaya were getting a considerably smaller rice ration than the people of Japan?

Mr. Thomas: I have no exact figures of the rice ration in Japan. The position in Malaya certainly is serious and we are doing our best to alleviate it.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not the case that the rice ration in Japan is about 10 ounces, in India about 9½ ounces and in Malaya about 4½ ounces, and will my hon. Friend make representations to secure a more equitable distribution of rice? Further, is he aware that if the rice ration of one of the other countries were reduced by, say, half an ounce, it would enable Malaya to get a sufficient rice ration compared with what is now being issued in other countries, instead of a quite inadequate ration which compels Malaya, and all the Asiatic employees of the Services to be dependent on black market rice, so that the Services must pay a black market price for it.

Mr. Thomas: I cannot confirm the figures, but certainly the ration in Malaya is lower than in a number of other countries round about and very much lower than we should wish to see.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware of the absolutely desperate position, which cannot be dismissed lightly?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Home Strength

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent


the proposal to have 700,000 men stationed in this country on 31st March, 1948, will involve an increase in the accommodation required; and to what extent this will involve outlay in works service or further requisitioning of civilian accommodation;
(2) to what extent the proposal to effect by 31st March, 1948, a net reduction of more than 200,000 men now serving in overseas stations will increase the number of those stationed at home; and for what purposes they will be used.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): On present plans there will be a net reduction in the strength of the Armed Forces in this country by 31st March next. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is accordingly no likelihood that any increase in accommodation will be required.

Mr. Sharp: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that there are at present over 700,000 men in the Forces stationed in this country?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. That can be deduced from the figures which were given on 23rd July.

Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to state the amount of land occupied for training of all the Forces, and can he give any indication when the promised White Paper on this subject will be available?

Mr. Alexander: I could not give it this morning.

Mr. James Callaghan: How many of these 700,000 men, or over, are at home at the moment engaged in training and how many of them are not doing anything at all?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister give an assurance that as many of these men as can be spared will spend the next few weeks working on the land?

Mr. Alexander: A request has been made already for people from the Forces to help with the harvest and that is being granted. In regard to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) the percentages can be given, but I have not got them with me this morning.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will everything possible be done to ensure that Polish workers are employed on the land?

Mr. Sharp: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the latter part of Question No. 20, which asked "for what purposes they will be used?" Can he say whether he is satisfied that there is a useful purpose which they perform, and which will be performed, by all the men who are stationed at home?

Mr. Alexander: I am aware of that, but there will be a further answer, I think, to a later Question.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that a regulation is now in force which will prevent people in the Forces from working on the land because they were not agricultural labourers before they joined up? Will he look into that, because there are people who wish to work on the land, but who cannot get agricultural leave, although they are waiting about with nothing to do?

Mr. Alexander: I will certainly look into the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that there has been an appeal to education authorities in Scotland to free children for the potato harvest, will the answer given by my right hon. Friend enable these troops to be used for the potato harvest and prevent children from being taken from the schools?

Mr. Alexander: We are allowing men from the Forces to engage in harvest operations, but I think that the use of soldiers will largely be a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On the general issue, can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be panicked by the economic crisis into a reduction of the Armed Forces below the safety level?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence for what purposes it is necessary now to maintain 700,000 men and women under arms in Great Britain.

Mr. Alexander: The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have now reverted to their normal peacetime practice of keeping the bulk of their strength in the United Kingdom and its adjacent waters. The


Army, in addition to maintaining its operational, administrative and training base in the United Kingdom, has a considerable range of duties to perform in connection with clearing defence areas, removing ammunition dumps, dealing with ordnance, supply and other depots, etc.

Mr. Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, now that these figures have been disclosed, there is widespread anxiety in this country that there is a very considerable wastage of manpower in the Armed Forces at home? Will he seriously review the situation, and does he not think that it is about time that this Parliament should be informed of the composition of these Forces in terms of the three Services?

Mr. Alexander: In regard to the first point, as my hon. Friend knows, we have had manpower committees sitting, and we should welcome evidence from any Members of Parliament of specific instances of wastage to be passed to the committees to be examined in detail, and we hope that will be done. As regards the question of breakdown, I should have to look at that more carefully.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend consider concentrating the bulk of these Forces into clearly defined military areas, thus freeing land and buildings in various parts of the country?

Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one regulation makes it impossible for hon. Members of this House to make effective representations to the committees, as no effective information is disclosed to the House on which such representation could be made? Will he now state the number of men in the three Armed Forces at present in the United Kingdom, because on that information very strong representations could be made to the manpower committees?

Mr. Alexander: I have not that information with me this morning, because it does not actually arise upon this Question. I have already said that rather more than half of the home strength referred to previously would be in the Navy and the Air Force.

Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the House yesterday, the

Secretary of State for War stated that the manpower economy committees were not concerned with immediate economy in manpower, but rather with the long-term problem, and, in view of that, will he suggest that the manpower committees in their deliberations should consider the urgent need for securing economy in the Armed Forces now?

Mr. Alexander: There is not any doubt at all that one of the important functions of the committees is to examine methods, staffs and targets for the long-term problem, and there is every reason why anyone who has any evidence of wastage in any particular instance should bring the evidence to the appropriate committee, who, I am sure, will examine it at once.

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Defence (1), how many of the 750,000 men, approximately, in the forces who are at present serving at home belong to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively; and how many of the 707,000 estimated to be serving at home on 31st March, 1948, he estimates will belong then to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively;
(2) whether he will state, for each of the three Services, what is the respective percentage of men now serving at home, undergoing training, on the teaching or permanent staff of training establishments or units, in ships, units or formations which belong to the home establishment for other than training or administrative reasons, on administrative duties connected with the supply and maintenance of equipment, other than headquarter's personnel, and on headquarters above unit level.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made in replying to the Debate on the Adjournment on Monday last, in which I gave the maximum information I prudently could.

Brigadier Low: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, at any rate, between now and the time when Parliament next meets, and does he not realise that much of the doubt and opposition to him is due to the fact that we have had far too little information upon which we can make up our minds?

Mr. Alexander: We must be, at least, one of the first two countries in the world which give the most information, and we do not get anything like the same information from other countries.

Mr. C. Williams: May I ask what proportion of these Forces are on the Continent, or are those Forces included in the figures of those in the British Isles?

Mr. Alexander: That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. In the redistribution plan for bringing men home from abroad, the figure of approximately 300,000 will include the German occupation Forces.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Will my right hon. Friend give the break-down figures, and let us know how many women there are in the Armed Forces, because many people think that a woman in the Forces is wasted?

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the complaints which we have heard in the House this morning and outside in the country about the number of men banging about doing nothing would be completely obviated if the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to maintaining an adequate inflow of new weapons and keeping the Army and the other Services up to date?

Mr. Alexander: There is always a great difficulty with priorities in this matter. The main thing we have had to do has been to speed up our production for export and civilian purposes, and, for the time being, we have had to live on the fat of the accumulated war supplies.

Mr. Callaghan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the 700,000 men now held in the Forces are being kept because of a strict adherence to the age and service principle of the release scheme?

Mr. Alexander: I should not say so, in broad terms. There may be some cases of that kind in the Army, but certainly not in the other Services. In our general review of the situation, we are examining the question whether that will not have to be altered.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider giving some of the

information asked for in Question No. 24, even though he cannot give all the information, because, even if we got some of the information for the Army only, I think it would help hon. Members of this House and the people in the country to have some slight understanding of what all these men are required for?

Mr. Alexander: I will look into that matter. There have been certain security reasons advanced to me, which I have accepted, but I will certainly look into it again.

Demobilisation Procedure (Staff)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the substantial increase in demobilisation necessitated from 1st April, 1948, to 31st December, 1948, by the lower rate of release between now and 31st March, 1948, will involve an increase in the staff dealing with demobilisation procedure; and whether he will avoid this by increasing the rate of release between now and 31st March, 1948, and, at the same time, provide manpower urgently required by industry.

Mr. Alexander: It is not expected that any increase in staff will be required for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN TEA (EXPORTERS' OFFER)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking on the offer conveyed to him on 23rd July by Messrs. H. S. Hames-Mathew on behalf of Indian tea exporters to supply, at once, any quantity of tea.

Mr. Simmons (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. All offers of tea received by the Ministry of Food are considered on their merits. The prices quoted by Messrs. Hamer-Mathew were considerably above the prevailing rates, and, accordingly, the firm were informed that the Ministry was not prepared to accept their offer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his answer which bases the refusal to take this tea on the question of price is completely inconsistent with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary last week that all the tea that could be


obtained was being obtained, but despite that the tea ration had to be reduced?

Mr. Simmons: I understand that it was open to all Indian tea producers to offer their tea to the Tea Control in Calcutta, and that the tenders were asked for, but that the total offers received were in excess of the quantity which the Indian Government were prepared to allow us to purchase by private contract, and that, therefore, the offers had to be scaled down proportionately.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that that is the third inconsistent explanation which has been given to the country for this shortage?

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER IMPORTS (REDUCTIONS)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health what reduction in the number of houses to be permitted for other than agricultural workers and miners is anticipated to result from the reduction by £10,000,000 in the value of timber to be imported in the next 12 months.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there must be other sources of supplies of timber available, and cannot he tell us whether he is doing something to enable these sources to be made available for housing purposes?

Mr. Bevan: Every effort is being made by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to get softwood for housing and hardwood for furniture from various parts of the world, and he has had a certain amount of success. In the meantime, there need be no apprehension about our own housing programme. At any rate, the contracts will not be interfered with, and there is sufficient timber coming forward for houses already under construction.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to grant a licence for the import of 73,000 scaffold boards from Luxemburg?

Mr. Bevan: That, of course, is a question which ought to be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I will certainly make inquiries, because I am quite sure that, as usual, the hon. Member's information is inaccurate.

Mr. Sharp: Can the Minister say what proportion of the £10,000,000 reduction on timber will affect the timber required for houses?

Mr. Bevan: I am not yet in a position to apportion it, because we do not know how far it will fall on the rest of the building programme. But the House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the building programme being reduced. It does not necessarily follow that any substantial effect will fall upon domestic housing.

Major Guy Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman want the local authorities to understand from his statement that, when they are frustrated in building houses, his Ministry will never again say that it is due to a shortage of timber?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not interpret what I have said beyond the frontier of what I have said. Indeed, the local authorities are not being frustrated; they are being released to build houses, and they are extremely grateful because of the fact that this is the first Government to give them a chance to build houses.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply also to Scotland?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, it is a United Kingdom figure.

Mr. J. H. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman says that all existing programmes will not be affected by the £10,000,000 cut, but can he give some indication as to when future programmes are likely to start?

Mr. Bevan: I did not say programmes; I said contracts. Obviously, it is not possible for me to outline any modifications in the housing programme in answer to suppleraentary questions, but, when we return from the Recess, I shall certainly be prepared to make a full statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH (CALL-UP)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the proposed reduction in the Forces, he will reconsider the call-up of the medical officer of health for Enfield.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that this medical officer's services are still required by the Forces, though the future needs of the medical branches of the Forces will, of course, be subject to review in the light of the proposed reduction.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give very careful reconsideration to this matter, in view of the fact that this medical officer of health is 38 years of age and had only been able to be a full-time medical officer of health for Enfield for 12 months, that a deputy has only recently been named, and that the health centre will be seriously affected if this officer is called up?

Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend knows, very careful inquiry has been made into this matter, but it is not fair that doctors should be retained in the Forces beyond a just period in order that other doctors may remain in civil life. There is always a matter of equity between the one to be called up and the one to be released, and that has always to be taken into account.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Health the number of full-time medical officers of health that have been called up to serve with His Majesty's Forces during 1947; and their number over 30, 35 and 40 years of age, respectively.

Mr. Bevan: Four whole-time public health medical officers have been called up during 1947, and two others are now under consideration for recruitment, Another has been nominated for call-up, but has been granted postponement on grounds of personal hardship. All these are over 35 and under 40.

Mr. Davies: In view of his reply, does my right hon. Friend really believe that there are not cases where the detrimental effect would be less than in the case of Enfield, which has a population of over 100,000?

Mr. Bevan: I admire my hon. Friend for pushing Enfield's claims, but I must

have regard to the claims of the country as a whole. I think he will realise from what I have said that very few medical officers of health have been called up, and that, therefore, the danger to public health is not great.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is it not a fact that the proportion of medical officers in the Services is about four times as great as that in civil life?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend means medical officers or doctors, They are in completely different categories. But I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very conscious of the need for more doctors in civil life, and the Forces will not be allowed to steal more than they can justly claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (STREET TRADER)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement in the case of Harry Joseph Stevelman.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This young man has now registered for National Service, and has already been medically examined.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that there are reasons to believe that this is not an isolated case, and that this man is one of a growing class of people; and, further, will he consider with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what steps can be taken to get rid of these petty crooks and leave street trading to decent honest traders.

Mr. Isaacs: On the information that we have about this young man, I do not think it is reasonable to put him in the class of petty crooks. After all, street sellers might be unnecessary, but that is no reason for calling them "petty crooks." So far as the question of making use of any manpower of that kind is concerned, when we have the powers for which the House has been asked, we shall take steps to see whether they can be used in that direction.

Mr. Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that this man has been fined £1,000 during the last 12


months, and if he does not consider that to be evidence of petty crockery, will he say what is?

Mr. Isaacs: If the question of petty crookery is based on the amount of money that people can make by the exercise of their wits, then there are lots of people who ought to be brought into that category. My opinion is that these people will be called up irrespective of whether they are petty crooks or large crooks.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that until this Bill which we are discussing becomes an Act of Parliament, he has no power to deal with these people?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDINGS, RICHMOND PARK (USE)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works for what purpose he proposes to use the buildings in Richmond Park, shortly to be vacated by 102 Convalescent Depot.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): When the convalescent depot is vacated, which will probably be about the end of the year, it is proposed to use the buildings to house competitors in the 1948 Olympic Games.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the fact that the Kingston Council applied to his Department for the use of these premises for housing the homeless, and is it really the decision of his Department that it is better to use this accommodation for the housing of international athletes, than for the housing of thousands of homeless people?

Mr. Durbin: It would not be possible, as the Amendment to the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1945, was withdrawn, to use these buildings in a Royal Park for housing purposes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that with the permission of his Department that would be possible?

Mr. Durbin: Since the decision was taken that the Olympic Games should be

held in this country we are under the necessity of finding appropriate accommodation for the visiting athletes, such accommodation must be reasonably near to the scene of the meeting, and these are unquestionably the most logical premises to use for the purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BRIDGE SCHEME

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Transport the present position with regard to the Severn Bridge and the Government's intentions in the matter.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Transport whether instructions have been issued to suspend the erection of the Severn Bridge; and, in view of its urgent need for developing transport and trade between Wales and South-west England and the continued unemployment in this area, if he will give every possible priority to its completion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): This scheme, together with other major schemes of capital equipment, is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that it was not under consideration on 22nd July when the Order was made?

Mr. Strauss: There is no question of the scheme not being carried out. It is only a question of time. It is a very necessary and desirable scheme in the interests of South Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Transport has assured the House that this scheme is part of the rehabilitation of South Wales, and will my hon. Friend emphasise to his right hon. Friend that this scheme should have a very high priority if South Wales is to get back on to its feet?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend fully agrees with that.

Mr. Freeman: Does not my hon. Friend also think that this scheme will help to cement the friendship between these two great countries?

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the Minister give a clear answer to this question?


Are they going on with the Severn Bridge, or are they not?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot say anything further than what I have already said, namely, that this proposal and other schemes of capital expenditure will be considered very shortly.

Mr. Callaghan: When the Department are reconsidering this scheme, will they bear in mind that there is no point in stopping it while there is a large reserve of unemployed, unless those men are going into the export trades? Further, will the Department also bear in mind that if they do not supply another 10,000 tons of structural steel to South Wales, they will not get the export factories completed anyway, and they will just continue to have unemployment?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. That is one of the factors which we have in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr. Driberg: asked the Attorney-General, if his attention has been called to the seditious libel contained in an editorial article in the "Morecambe and Heysham Visitor" of 6th August, which is professedly anti-Semitic in character and commends the use of violence against the Jewish community in Britain; and what action he is taking.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): My attention has been drawn to the publication referred to by my hon. Friend, which I have forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if the existing law and powers prove inadequate to deal wth this most dangerous disease of anti-Semitism, it may be necessary to introduce new legislation?

The Attorney-General: I have no doubt of the deplorable character of this movement, or, indeed, of the article in question, of which the avowed intention is to create anti-Semitism. Whether it involves any breach of the criminal law is a matter which is now going to receive consideration in connection with this article. The wider aspects of the matter will certainly be looked at in the light of

the result of the consideration to which I have referred.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that while deprecating anti-Semitism, sometimes when one tries to cure an evil one only extends it, and that it is far better to allow public opinion and reasoned opinion in this country to operate instead of going in for wholesale repression which may affect more than the people concerned?

The Attorney-General: I quite agree. That is a very important consideration and and one to which, of course, we have regard, both in connection with prosecutions in particular cases, and in connection with the wider aspect of the matter which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Attorney-General aware that anti-Semitism is, in its essence, an incitement to murder, and should it not be treated as the crime which it really is?

Mr. Bechervaise: While hoping that some action will be taken against this movement, may I ask the Attorney-General at the same time to consider some of the violent anti-British propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — SURGICAL BOOTS (DELIVERIES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that a disabled ex-Service man, case No. 2/MH/2984, is unable to follow his employment on a seed farm at Kelvedon, Essex, because his surgical boots are completely unserviceable; that renewal of boots was due last December and that this man was remeasured for them at a Ministry of Pension's clinic on 14th January last; that he has for seven months addressed repeated appeals to the Department's regional office at Cambridge, but has still not received his new boots; and if he will expedite the provision of these boots and explain the cause of this long delay.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): The order, which was placed on 16th January, two days after the man was measured, involved the making of a new last by the contractor. Owing to a shortage of skilled labour there is, in general,


delay in the delivery of new boots and the position is especially difficult when a new last has to be made. In this case, delivery of the new boots has been promised within a fortnight from now. Appropriate allowances will be paid for any period during which the pensioner has been prevented from working. To help in remedying the position as a whole, some disabled ex-Service men have been taken into training, and a number of European volunteer workers have recently been brought to this country and are employed at the factory of our principal contractors.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO DUTY (OLD AGE PENSIONERS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon the special arrangements for enabling old age pensioners to get tobacco cheaply will be in force.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. On 13th October next.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this decision could be made retrospective from the introduction of the Budget?

Oral Answers to Questions — BINDER CANVASES (REPAIR MATERIALS)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is

aware that there is an acute shortage in Liskeard, Cornwall, of ash slats or rods for repairing binder canvases; and if he will make supplies available with speed in order that these canvases can be repaired in time to cut this year's corn.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): There is a shortage of ash generally, but my attention has not previously been called to any particular difficulty in Liskeard. I am, however, making inquiries.

Mr. Marshall: Has the hon. Gentleman received the letter which I have sent to him, and will he make particular inquiries with regard to the specific matter which I mentioned in that letter?

Mr. Belcher: I received the letter in my office this morning. We have taken the matter up with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do all we can, as we recognise the importance of the matter.

Earl Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a quantity of good ash which can be cut in Surrey, Sussex and the Home Counties if we get the labour? Will the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with the Ministry of Labour, because they are crying out for labour in those places?

Mr. Belcher: Certainly. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to communicate with me and let me have the details.

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House this day until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Six o'clock adjourn the House without Question put."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising this Day, do adjourn till Monday, 20th October."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, to leave out from "till", to the end of the Question, and to add: "Tuesday, 16th September."
This is a manuscript Amendment. I feel the more emboldened in this course by events which occurred in another place yesterday. It would not be in Order to quote those events, but I think it would be a fair summary if I were to say that when in another place a number of noble Lords thought it desirable that the House should meet earlier, the Lord Chancellor, at least, did not show himself in any way hostile to the proposal. I hope—in fact, I feel sure—that there will not be any differences among the Government on this point. We know there never are any differences among the Government, and I feel sure, therefore, that we can count on the Lord President to be at least as forthcoming as was the Lord Chancellor in another place. If he feels able to meet us in the same spirit and temper, we shall have made remarkable progress.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that it is another place.

Mr. Eden: It is the same Government, or it ought to be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) must not interrupt, because I have noted a vote which he gave a little time ago. He voted against adjourning for six weeks in the year in which we were winning the war, so he had better be careful not to vote in favour of adjourning for 10 weeks on this occasion.
I want to ask the House to consider our position and to examine the reasons why,

in all seriousness, we on this side of the House urge the recall of the House on the date which I have mentioned, namely, 16th September. Nobody will deny—unhappily, nobody can deny—that this country is in a balance of payments crisis, and, according to the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us yesterday, the American loan will have run out before the House re-assembles, if it does re-assemble on the date suggested in October. There will then be a yawning gap, with little except our reserves of gold and free exchange available to bridge that gap; and, we are all agreed, as the Chancellor told us the other day, that we must not fritter away those last reserves.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: What do the Government propose to do to meet this situation—the final exhaustion of the American Loan—which will arise before this House resumes, on the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself? We do not know what the Government propose to do. All that we have been told so far is that there are to be some cuts in imports, cuts which may, perhaps, reduce this yawning gap by—shall we say?—a third, probably more nearly a quarter. We have also been told there is to be some increase in exports, but not, I should imagine, before we return in October. That increase in exports can only come about at a considerably later date. The Government have not claimed it will be sooner than that.
So we are in the position that we are to adjourn in the certain knowledge that the American loan will run out before we resume, and with no information from the Government as to what they propose to do in these conditions. I say deliberately that such a situation is quite unprecedented. What we are asked to do is to adjourn when the Government have no plan—to adjourn, if you will, to enable the Government to seek for a plan; in other words, to adjourn to enable the Government to do something which they ought to have begun to do a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman feels any doubt as to the justice of these observations, let him re-read—because I am sure he must have read it before—the letter in the "Daily Herald" of last Friday signed by 19 of his own supporters on the back benches.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman must be in a bad way if he has to quote them in support.

Mr. Eden: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should say that.

Mr. Morrison: Why not quote 19 Tory Members?

Mr. Eden: I am speaking for the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. I am drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he could not speak for the views of those behind him on this occasion. I hope that is quite clear. It seems to me that some of the arguments there adduced are worthy of consideration. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is what we feel about the present situation, and about the decision to adjourn for so long a period, when the Government have not only shown a lack of foresight but have already shown a stubborn unwillingness to face the facts which were apparent to any person of average intelligence without any of the Government's special sources of information. That was true of the fuel crisis last winter, and it is true also of the balance of payments crisis with which we are confronted now.
I am going to quote just one other witness in my support for saying that this Adjournment is too long. I say that we cannot leave the Government in sole charge for this long period in view of the extent to which they have misjudged the situation up to date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in this House in the spring said this:
Questions have been raised also about the overseas balances in regard to which I would refer those who have spoken, particularly those who have spoken in terms of great gloom, to a very clear and cogent article, which I read this morning in the 'Daily Herald' by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay). I am sure that any hon. Member who has not read his 'Daily Herald' this morning, would profit by reading, at any rate, this article."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1068–9.]
I turned up the article. My reason for quoting it in this connection is to show how impossible it is to leave the Government in sole charge of our affairs for two and a half months when they can so misread the situation as also does this article. This is what the hon. Member for North Battersea wrote:

I have heard talk lately about the alleged rapid rate at which the American loan is being used up. The talk is grossly exaggerated. The loan is, in fact, being used more slowly than we expected it would. Therefore, do not be misled by the alarmists who argue from nightmares rather than from facts and figures. They say that the American loan—they usually forget the Canadian loan—will be used up by next winter. The truth is, I repeat, that the two loans are likely to last for about two years from now.
That was the article which the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few short months ago commended with the warmest commendation to the House.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if matters of this kind are pursued, will not the Debate range very widely indeed beyond the Question before us, which is the date of the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: This is one of the Debates which it is very difficult to control, because, after all, there may be hundreds of reasons for limiting the Adjournment, and hon. Members must be allowed to state them.

Mr. Eden: I hoped I had made my argument clear. The reason why I quoted this article and its commendation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to show how impossible it is to place any confidence in the forecasts of His Majesty's present advisers about the state of the balance of payments or anything else in our economic position. That being the position, I do not feel, and my hon. and right hon. Friends do not feel, that it is possible to adjourn this House for a period of 10 weeks. If the Government had a plan, a plan endorsed by the House and endorsed by the nation, which they were to work, it would be a different state of affairs which could be examined accordingly. We have, however, now come to a most remarkable point, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all men, could so completely misread the situation so short a time ago.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Was the article to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in the "Daily Herald" in February?

Mr. Eden: March.

Mr. McLeavy: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the


House when the increase of prices started—the ramp in America? Would it not be true to say that the statements in the article were perfectly true at that particular time when it was published?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed. The rise in prices has been going on for the last two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would add this—I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it is quite correct—that the rise in prices was actually steeper just about the time that this article was written. At any rate, I do not think there is anybody who now says—is there anybody who now says?—that in March it was impossible to foresee what was going to happen now. If so, why did the article rebuke us for the warnings we uttered?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the rise in prices became particularly steep at the time when the United States Government decided to adopt the policy which the Conservatives were advocating in this country?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make that point. I am simply dealing with the facts, and the facts are that, as recently as last March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer commended an article which completely misread the situation.

Mr. Driberg: It is perfectly true that the increase of prices started earlier, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only between two and three months since President Truman made a speech regarding the recent very considerable increase of prices?

Mr. Eden: I am perfectly aware of the President's speeches, and I am aware that there has been a rise in prices. But are hon. Gentlemen really going to tell me that in March this year it was impossible for the Government, with all their knowledge of the facts, to foresee that there was going to be a rise in prices? If they are going to tell me that, I say that no Government of this country have ever made so pitiable an excuse to the House of Commons.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Since the right hon. Gentleman did quote

an article of mine, perhaps I may just say this. What I said in that article was, that at the existing rate of dollar drawings the American and Canadian loans would together last to a certain date; and let me say that it was perfectly correct at that time. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at "The Economist" of 5th April he will see that they made exactly the same calculation.

Mr. Eden: I am not in any way criticising the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I am not. Perhaps the House would be patient and allow me to develop my argument; I have given way several times already. I am not complaining of the hon. Member's statement, any more than I should complain if I or any other hon. Member on this side of the House, with our sources of public information, had happened to misread the situation. What I am complaining of is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is the one man who ought to know better, who has the sources of information available at the Treasury, and who must know about the trends of prices and what they are likely to be in the immediate future—should so utterly have misread the situation a few months ago. That is what I complain of. If hon. Members opposite find that satisfactory, then I make them a present of that satisfaction. I can only say that to me it seems a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I apologise to the House that I should be taking a little longer than I intended——

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Member went rather far from the point.

Mr. Eden: I was pushed farther. I like to give way to hon. Members opposite, for if they wish to make a contribution that is what the House is for. I said that Parliament has been given no explanation about what will happen in October, or what will be the various measures to increase our exports, which is to be one of the methods of bridging this gap. Therefore, I say that the suggestion that Parliament should adjourn for so long in these circumstances is unacceptable to us.
I want to put to the House two or three questions which have still not been answered, which should, I think, convince any hon. Member that we cannot disperse for so long a time. We have not yet been told—as was evidenced at Question Time today in regard to the Severn


Bridge—what reduction the Government propose to make in the present estimates of capital expenditure. What are they to be? Presumably, during the Recess some form of answer will be worked out to that question, but I say the House should be available to receive that answer and to discuss it. What steps will be taken to meet the current inflationary pressure, which has been referred to by the Chancellor, and the certainty of greater inflation when the loan runs out before we meet again, and to deal with the effect of further cuts in consumer goods when they make themselves felt? What will be done about that? Again, we have not yet been told the answer to that question. All the Chancellor did was to pose the problem, but to provide no solution. What is to be decided about the coal production programme? Are the Government still persisting with the extra half-hour a day, or are they now thinking of the 11-day fortnight? Which is it to be? Those are matters which the House must be told. Or, is there some other plan? On all these issues we are still without information.
What is the Government's intention in respect of the direction of labour? Do they intend to apply the Control of Engagements Order? When and how do they intend to apply direction of labour, and what will the penalty be? Those are questions of the greatest moment to every one of us, and I say it is unreasonable that the House should adjourn for 10 weeks while the Government make up their minds on these issues, without our being informed what the decisions are. The country has not been given, neither through the House of Commons or through the Prime Minister's broadcast, any effective account of how the present difficulties of our balance of payments are to be surmounted. That is hardly disputed anywhere. Every day evidence grows that the Government have, in fact, neither plan nor policy.
I just want to say a few words about the actual date we have chosen.

Mr. H. Morrison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says that. I was about to try to explain the merits of this particular date, which I am sure he would like to hear. I know as we all know that the House has had a gruelling Session, and that all hon. Members, including Ministers,

are tired. That is accepted. We on this side of the House naturally think that perhaps the time of the Session might have been better devoted to examination of some of the problems by which we are now in danger of being overwhelmed, rather than to other matters, but it would be out of Order to go into that now. I concede at once that the Session has been a long one, and I also concede that the House must adjourn for a while. We do not propose in our suggestion that the House should sit for long when it resumes in September, but we do ask that at that date we should meet to review the situation, and to satisfy ourselves that the Government have, at long last, got a plan by then to meet the situation.
It is, I repeat, the absence of a Government plan or a Government policy which makes the present course inevitable. If the Government had a plan, endorsed by the House and the nation, we should feel differently; but they have no such plan. Today, they ask for a blank cheque in respect of policy for the next two and a half months, just as yesterday they were asking for a blank cheque in respect of our liberties for the next three years. No House of Commons should grant either of those things to the present administration, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members of this House cannot be content to be absent spectators while the Government do the splits over an ever-widening abyss. That is the situation which is developing before us. The situation which now confronts this country is, we would all agree, one of the utmost gravity. In many respects I think many of us are more concerned with the present situation than we were even in the darkest days of 1940. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in those conditions the House has no right to take a long Adjournment. The request that we make is a modest and a reasonable one, and I trust the Government will accept it in that sense. If they accept it they will show themselves sensible of the task that confronts them, and sensible of their responsibilities both to this House and to the nation.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Had times been normal, undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House of Commons would have been entitled to a rather long rest. We have


had one of the most strenuous Sessions that this House has ever had, and undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House are tired, But times are not normal. In fact, everybody has been admitting—the Prime Minister, hon. Members, and others elsewhere—that we are face to face with one of the most critical, if not the most critical, economic situation this country has ever faced; yet we are now proposing to adjourn for the long period of 10 weeks.
Before passing to other matters, I wish to point out the very serious psychological effect which that is bound to have upon the people of the country, upon the constituents of every one of us. The fact that this critical situation has been growing, has not only been known to the people but advertised on the walls by the Government for quite a long period. The nation has been told: "We Work or Want." It has been my fate, time and time again since 1939, living in the very serious days we have passed through since that year, to ask the Government not to adjourn this House for as long as they have done. Events are moving so rapidly nowadays—and they have been moving particularly rapidly during the last six months, as everyone admits—that they are not only marching along, but actually hurtling along. It is difficult for anyone to prophesy not merely what the position may be in a month's time, but what it may be in about a week's time. I would recall to the House that on 7th May, 1940, the Government of that day proposed to adjourn, with the consent of all sides at that time, and I then had to move an Amendment that the House should not adjourn because of the seriousness of the situation. It turned out that I was right, because the very day after the House adjourned Holland and Belgium were put completely and absolutely under the heel of Germany. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Did you know about that?"] I do not know why the hon. Member laughs.

Mr. William Adams: I can tell the right hon. and learned Member. He said that he had moved that the House should not adjourn in 1940. Is he doing so now, because if not, his argument falls to the ground?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member was not following what I said. I was saying that

events are moving so rapidly that it is completely wrong to ask the House to go away for such a long period as 10 weeks, Hon. Members ask why we should adjourn for even a month. If I disagree at all with the Amendment, it is that even one month is far too long a period. However, it is far better than an Adjournment for twice as long.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman overlooking the fact that Parliament can, if necessary, be easily recalled?

Mr. Eden: Only by the Government.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that that question has been asked. Under a Sessional Order made at the beginning of the Session—and we could not foresee last November that the Government would be sending the House away at such a critical moment as this—the Government provided that Parliament could not be recalled except on the initiative of the Government. If there had not been this change in procedure, I should have moved an Amendment, which is on the Order Paper, asking that not only shall the initiative be in the hands of the Government, but also in the hands of 40 Members on sending a written request to Mr. Speaker for the recall of Parliament. Unfortunately, I cannot have that matter debated before the House adjourns.
Events are moving extraordinarily rapidly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) quoted what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last March, but only a month ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us that the amount of drawings on dollars was perfectly normal. What is more, if the reports in the newspapers this morning are correct, the report from Paris ought to be ready by 1st September, as the conference is aiming to complete its work by that date. That report will have to be considered by His Majesty's Government. Not only will they have to consider it, but they will have to come to a quick decision, and that decision will affect not only the people of this country, but the people of Europe as a whole. That being so, their decision ought to be discussed in the forum of the House of Commons, and should not be kept locked in their breast until we return at the end of October. We have been without a plan and without a policy


to deal with this economic situation. That has been admitted even by the Prime Minister when he last made a speech in the House. We want to know and discuss the Government's plans to deal with the situation, and I ask the Government to give a fixed date when their plans and policy will be ready, and the measures they propose to enforce under the Bill, now in another place, to deal with the labour situation, the material situation and capital expenditure.
The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) got very excited about the Severn Bridge, but when the Government have to take action in that matter, he will be away in Cardiff. He will not even know about the decision which has been taken, and he will be unable to ask any questions. The decisions the Government will be taking will affect individuals, industries, businesses and everything else, and I say to the Government that it is absolutely wrong in these circum-stances to ask us to go away for such an extended period. If agreed to this September date, we could reassemble and then discuss whether there should be a further Adjournment. The Government having announced to the House their decisions, the House could then discuss them, and then, if necessary, we could adjourn for another week or so. I say again, that it is far too long to postpone the decisions which will have to be taken and the discussions on those decisions which ought to take place.

12.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I regard this issue the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In my view, as Members of Parliament we were elected to look after and safeguard the interests of our constituents and the nation. One of the main and proper functions of Parliament is to keep an eye on the Executive, and that function becomes even more vital when half the Executive, to quote from an apt description in the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, is flaccid and frightened, and the other half is frightened and frenzied. If we were to comply with the Motion on the Order Paper, we should be abdicating our duties as Members of Parliament and deserting our country and our constituents in the moment of their greatest crisis.

Mr. Pritt: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell the House how many times in the last Parliament he voted against similar proposals to recall Parliament?

Sir T. Moore: That is one of the usual irrelevant interjections made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, we are dealing with the situation which exists today, and not with a situation which existed five or seven years ago. I was saying that we are deserting our people in the hour of their greatest crisis. But the trouble, the tragedy is that our people have ceased to believe that there is a crisis. Why should they believe it, since although the Government were assisted by the entire Press of the nation during the past few weeks, they so fumbled and fiddled with the issue that the people have now sunk back into the pathetic apathy they were bludgeoned into during six years of war and two years of Socialism?
Are they to be blamed? They looked for a clarion call, they waited for an inspired voice, but they were denied even a noble enterprise, and all they got was fiddling, tinkering and vacuity. What were we told a few days ago as the inspiration on which we should take off our coats, and get down to saving the nation? We were told that the Government had decided to fix a target for the steel output. I think the country was justified in viewing that suggestion with a certain amount of cynicism when they remembered the targets for coal and for houses which have been long since discredited. Then, of course, we had that noble exhortation of the Prime Minister to women to come back into industry—to forsake their washtubs, their queues and their housework—and all this at the same time as the miners were enjoying a five-day week and children were being kept an extra year at school in spite of the fact that we are short of the schools, teachers and text-books to teach them with.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going even wider than usual.

Sir T. Moore: I will come back to the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite never like to hear the truth, and as far as possible


they deliberately close their ears to any exposures of the vacuity and fatuity of the Government from this side. I should like to ask the Leader of the House what the Government are going to do in the Recess. What are they going to do about production? As my right hon. Friend has said, they have no plan and have advanced no justification for the Recess. No doubt as he said, they are tired——

Mr. Speaker: What the Government are going to do during the Recess is not really a question which is applicable to this Debate. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) gave certain questions which he thought ought to be answered on 16th September, but he did not ask what the Government were to do during the Recess. He merely wished to indicate certain questions which he was prepared to ask at that date.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You say that what the Government may do during the Recess is not appropriate to this Debate, but if they were to regulate labour during the Recess would that not be a reason for this House being recalled on 16th September?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter in which it is for me to say "yes" or "no," but that was not the question which the hon. and gallant Member was asking. He was asking the broad question what the Government were going to do during the Recess and was not referring to a specific action. That more or less specific question was included by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in a general question.

Sir T. Moore: My point was that I would feel happier in allowing the Government to have this Recess if I knew that they were going to use it wisely, but they have given us no indication that they are going to use it at all. If, on this question of production, they would tell us even today that they have a plan for definitely increasing production instead of merely fixing vain targets, circumstances would be quite different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said in a very notable and distinguished book called "The Rise and

Fall of the ex-Socialist Government "—which you can buy at any good bookshop—owing to the attitude of the Government now there are only two means by which, during the Recess or any other time, they can increase production. Those means are the carrot or the stick. By the Bill which is now awaiting Royal Assent the Government have thrown over the carrot and the encouragement of incentive, and are using the method of the stick. If they go on as they are going it will be the stick of unemployment and hunger.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going all over the place, so to speak, and he must get back more or less to the question of the date when we are to return. I must say that I do not think that this is an occasion when those who were unfortunate enough not to catch my eye during the recent Debate should attempt to make the speeches which they wanted to make on that occasion.

Sir T. Moore: I would say, "touché," but believe me, Sir, I had a much more powerful speech to make than this, but my recognition of the possibility of being called to Order guided me in cutting out a great portion of it. In response to your request I will conclude my remarks by saying that no one willingly hands over a high-powered and, therefore, dangerous motorcar to an epileptic. Certainly, no one would travel in it, but what are we doing? We are doing exactly that today. During the past few days we have given a powerful instrument to an incompetent and inept Government and, therefore, the whole future of this country is now in danger because it has been left in their hands without the criticism or safeguard of Parliament for the next ten weeks.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: Knowing Parliamentary procedure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was able this morning to ramble over a great field of Government activities, occasionally bringing in the date 16th September, but I want to suggest to the House that the reasons he put forward for our coming back on 16th September were far better reasons for not adjourning at all. There is, therefore, a degree of


humbug—I do not know whether that is a Parliamentary expression but if it were I should say that it was humbug——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say it, because it is un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Messer: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, has it not in fact been ruled that "humbug" is a Parliamentary expression.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am now giving a Ruling that it is not Parliamentary, and that that will have to stand as far as this Debate is concerned.

Mr. G. Thomas: I think I can help by saying that I will not speak my thoughts aloud. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression this morning that he was seeking another stick with which to beat the Government—that it was not a question of the Adjournment at all but merely another excuse to try to create some feeling that the Government, and in particular this Front Bench, were not doing their duty by having a break at the present time. There seems to be a mistaken idea opposite, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party—who has now been joined by one other Member of his party——

Mr. C. Davies: That is cheap.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is cheap. This morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hysterical and foolish in the line that he took. I know Wales, I know Welshmen when they are excited, and we had an excitable Welshman there who was carried away with some deep feeling that somehow or another he had to hit at this side. He reminded me of the fact that before I came to this House I was a schoolmaster, and that it used to be my task on occasions to mark exercises. As I was correcting them—I do not mind giving this professional tip—I was saying to myself "accuracy, presentation, context," and I gave marks for them, and further marks for neatness. Neatness would not have entered into it in the presentation of the right hon. Gentleman's case. When it came to context I asked myself, "What is he really saying? What substantially worth counting has he brought forward?"

At the end I said to myself, "Words, words, and still more words, without any reasoned argument——"

Mr. Price - White: The hon. Member has described the right hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) as an excitable Welshman, and has implied that excitable Welshmen are a danger. Can he say, before he leaves this part of his subject, whether the nine Welshmen who are now in the Government, are also a danger?

Mr. Thomas: Hon. Members may not realise that that is an example of humour from North Wales.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the House will get back to the Debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas: I will leave the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is certainly creating the danger of making me excited as well. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) was quoting what some hon. Members had been saying on this side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member, who is remembered of course for his remarkable article in the "Daily Mail"—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member, and I appreciate his reaction. I would be sensitive if I had written such an article. I know it is the accustomed duty of the Opposition to oppose, but apparently this Opposition have a link with the Liberal group who are here, and it is just as well for the country to know how many are left here.

Mr. C. Davies: The hon. Member is engaged in the usual habit of some Members opposite, of sneering. I can assure him that I and my colleagues are much more faithful in our attendance in this House than most.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what all this has to do with the Amendment, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member will not pursue this subject any further, but return to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Thomas: I think the country ought to be aware—when the deputy Leader of the Opposition asks us to go away for five weeks, forget it all, have our holiday and then come back—how many Members


of the Opposition were here after the all-night sitting.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That has really nothing to do with the Amendment. The House should get back to the consideration of the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas: When we return on 16th September, how many Members of the Opposition will be here? What a false idea it is that when we leave these premises we are on holiday. Hon. Members opposite may not be very well known in their constituencies. I shall not be on holiday because I believe it is the duty of hon. Members to be in their constituencies.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. [Laughter.] Is it funny? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Earl Winterton: It is awfully funny, I know, but my point of Order is this—[Laughter]—when I can put it and when hon. Members opposite have ceased their derisive laughter—that the hon. Member who was on his feet was asking whether hon. Members on this side of the House were going to be in their constituencies during the Recess. What on earth have such wounding observations about hon. Members on this side of the House to do with the Motion before the House?

Mr. H. Morrison: Further to that point of Order. I submit that the remarks of my hon. Friend as to what hon. Members do with their time in the Recess is very much more relevant to the Motion before the House than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Eden: I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what the Leader of the House has just said, which was to imply that my speech was out of Order.

Earl Winterton: rose——

Mr. Morrison: When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gets into this state of extreme excitement I often wonder what his end is going to be.

Earl Winterton: We know what yours will be.

Mr. Morrison: Sir, I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman has implied. I

only asked if my hon. Friend's observations were not nearer to the point of the Amendment than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition. I did not say that he was out of Order.

Mr. Eden: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and he said that the hon. Member was more in Order than I was. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am within the recollection of the House.

An Hon. Member: He said: "More relevant."

Mr. Eden: Very well, but that implies that my speech was irrelevant.

Mr. Morrison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can follow ordinary English? "More relevant" means that the speech of my hon. Friend was, in my judgment, more relevant than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was irrelevant, indeed I could not, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Eden: I have only one further comment to make—[Interruption]—If I may be allowed to make a comment. I regret that the Leader of the House felt it necessary to use language like that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for me to pronounce judgment upon what has happened. Obviously if Mr. Speaker had thought that any speech was irrelevant or out of Order, he would not have allowed it.

Mr. G. Thomas: It appears that there are other excitable people, apart from Welshmen. We have been expecting a Recess, and hon. Members have made arrangements, not for their holidays, but, so far as I am concerned, for a whole list of activities with my people and in my constituency. I believe that a Member of Parliament has far more to do than even addressing this House. We cannot say that attending this House is our only duty. We have a place and a duty in the country. Whatever—I hope the noble Lord will not get excited at this—hon. Members opposite will be doing, I know where I and my hon. Friends will be.

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thomas: We shall not be shooting grouse.

Earl Winterton: In the pub, that's where you will be.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot get into this kind of tangle. It is becoming almost farcical.

Mr. Davies: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to imply that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) will spend his Recess in a pub? As it happens, the hon. Member is a complete teetotaller.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot deal with two points of Order at the same time. On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) it would not be correct, or even possible, for me to suggest that it was out of Order for any hon. Member to spend his Recess in the aforesaid place.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would it be in Order for the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) to give an assurance that he will not be shooting a line instead of shooting grouse?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be out of Order because it has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to the original point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman now continues his speech and that the incident is now closed.

Mr. Thomas: The noble Lord opposite distinctly said in the hearing of my hon. Friends that I will spend my time in a public house.

Mr. Harold Davies: In a saloon bar.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Might I suggest that while I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will do with his time, we are wasting a good deal of time here today.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You may be aware that in Wales there is a very strong feeling on the subject of public houses.—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) may sneer. Perhaps he does not agree.—[Interruption.] I am going to put my point of Order. It is a very wounding charge to level against an hon. Member who is a total abstainer that he is going to spend his time in public houses. May I therefore ask whether the ignoble Lord opposite will have the decency to withdraw?

Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot deal with more than one point of Order at a time.

Mr. J. Hudson: It is the same point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With regard to that point of Order, I did not hear the statement made——

Mr. G. Thomas: But the noble Lord made it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I submit that the hon. Member is so well known in Wales that if it were said, it would be known to be untrue.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Earl Winterton: I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his most serious charge against me that I was going to spend the Recess shooting grouse, to withdraw any suggestion that he ever enters a pub.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the House that we are getting no further with this Amendment, and I call on the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.

Mr. G. Thomas: I do not see why the noble Lord should get away with an insult of that kind. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the noble Lord has no right, with his knowledge of the customs of this House, to lay down conditions upon which he will withdraw his statement, and I ask your protection that it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member asks for my protection, which is accorded to him immediately, but I think that at the moment we are making a tremendous lot out of a very small—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would allow me to complete my sentence. In


view of the fact that the hon. Member is so well known, it is obvious that the charge is untrue.

Mr. Thomas: I am not going to continue with my speech, even if I have to leave the Chamber, until that statement is withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member certainly should not speak in that tone.

Mr. Thomas: The statement should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot compel me to take a certain course of action. The Chair decides, and accepts responsibility for what it does. We seem to be on an entirely false track and are spoiling what is really a very important Debate and one on which we want to arrive at a conclusion early. I hope the hon. Member will consider the incident closed.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have appealed to the hon. Member—[Interruption.]—Order. I appeal to the hon. Member to regard the incident as closed and now to continue with his speech.

Mr. G. Thomas: rose——

Mr. Callaghan: I desire to put a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if I am out of Order, doubtless you will tell me so immediately. The point of Order is that when a charge is made against the personal integrity of an hon. Member and he denies that charge immediately, is it not the custom of this House that the hon. Member who has made the charge should withdraw it?

Earl Winterton: I have done so.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there has been no charge against' the integrity of any hon. Member? Do not many hon. Members know that by sitting in a public house in one's constituency one can obtain extremely valuable information and make the closest possible contact——

Mr. J. Hudson: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot speak unless he is called upon.

The hon. Member must wait for a minute while I am hearing the point of Order for the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield).

Sir W. Wakefield: I was saying that in that way it is possible for Members of Parliament to obtain the closest possible contact with their constituents. I suggest that if the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) carried out that procedure he would learn from his constituents their feelings towards this Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really must appeal to the House. It is not for me to determine the accuracy of any charge, if a charge were made, and I am not convinced that any such charge was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] It may be that personal offence was taken, and the hon. Member is justified in feeling offended, but I did not appreciate that any individual charge was made. I cannot allow the Debate to continue on these lines.

Mr. J. Hudson: Further to the point of Order. I submit that the charge is of an extremely serious character if any hon. Member of this House who is well known to take certain standards of conduct is accused in the House of deliberately and deceitfully, after his own professions, going where he says that people ought not to go. Is that not a serious charge to make against a man who takes the standard my hon. Friend takes?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As a matter of fact, I never heard the charge made in the form in which the hon. Member has expressed it. It may or may not have been a jocular remark, but I feel that there is no question now, even if there were before, of the hon. Member visiting such places.

Mr. Keenan: Further to that point of Order. May I point out that the noble Lord did admit that he made such an observation when he was up the last time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not denied that I heard the noble Lord. It may have been an unfortunate remark or a remark intended to be of a jocular character, but what I feel is that we are now wasting more time than is desirable and that we should get on with the business.

Mr. G. Thomas: In view of your request, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and despite my feeling, I propose to leave the matter there. I trust that the people in my constituency know me well enough.

Earl Winterton: And in mine, too. [Interruption.]

Mr. Thomas: If I cannot get on, it is not my fault, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The people of this nation realise that the Government need this opportunity in order that they shall be better prepared to carry on with the work afterwards, and I think that no great and useful purpose will be served by saying 16th September rather than 20th October since the Government have the power to call us back, if it were needed, on 1st September and not 16th September.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise to try to recall the House to the subject matter of this Debate. The subject we are discussing is a serious one. It affects our responsibilities as Members of the House of Commons, whether we sit on that side or on this side. It affects our responsibilities to our constituencies during the coming weeks. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, when he moved the Motion, advanced no argument at all as to why we should adjourn until 20th October. Whatever views he may have about the relevance or irrelevance of other people's arguments, he did not dare present his own. I should have thought that, at a moment such as this, it is an astonishing thing to suggest that we should adjourn for 10 weeks, without hearing a single thing in support of that suggestion. One would have thought that the House was at least entitled to some explanation on the subject.
I want to put to the Government and to the House the reason why I support the suggestion of ray right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). A great deal of talk has gone on about the crisis which this country is in at the present time. The real crisis has not even yet come upon the country; it has not really started. There is a sort of crisis going on, but it is a Governmental crisis. The crisis going on now is that the Government have suddenly recognised the state of affairs which everyone else, including most of the back-benchers on

the other side, knew perfectly well had been going on for a very long time. That is the real crux of the matter at the moment. The suggestions put forward by the Government amount, as my right hon. Friend said, to dealing with only about one-third of the problem which will have arisen by 20th October. The Government have suggested that certain cuts should be made in imports; but they only close the gap by about one-third. What are the Government's proposals for dealing with the situation which, on most people's estimate, will certainly be with us by about 20th October. Are the import cuts to be trebled while the House is not in Session? Are we to read these things in the newspapers, without having any opportunity of discussing them, of making our points about them, or of representing the views of our constituents? It seems to me that that is not treating the House with very proper respect.
Before we go away for 10 weeks, I should like—if I may have the attention of the Lord President for one moment, because I want to put an important point to him—to know, as I think a great many people in the country want to know, what has been happening to these dollars? I have studied, as far as I can, the very complicated account of the dollar expenditure, which was presented in a two-hours speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Stubbs: What has that to do with the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Whatever may be said about other arguments, this is a peculiarly relevant one. I am saying that, before we go away for 10 weeks, the country is entitled to know whether the Government are looking after the dollars which we have left as well as they should be? I say that they have not been looking after them very properly. I say that there is some money missing from the till; it is public money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of that till. I am not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dollar bills—[Interruption.]

The Minister of Health (Mr. Bevan): I thought that was an extremely inelegant metaphor.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of the elegance of metaphors, but I


would prefer to choose my own. I was under no doubt that we have had, so far as it is possible for us to see, an explanation of how these dollars have been spent, but there is a real suspicion, widely expressed in this country, that there are leakages, for some reason which, so far, has not been properly understood. I suggest that before we go away, we should be satisfied on that point. We want to have a clear and concise account to show that the figures have been properly set out to us, and that this kind of leakage is not going on. Unless we have some special assurance, I think it is wrong that we should disperse, and see the Email remaining total of dollars squandered when they could be put to more proper usage.
Various decisions have to be made by the Government. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) is a neighbour of mine in South Wales. We are both interested in the question of the Severn bridge. Only a few weeks ago, after many promptings, the Minister of Transport announced that work on this great scheme—always wanted—was to start next spring. I have no doubt that the Government got some credit for that announcement. It was thought, "Here, the Government mean business at last, and this great scheme is going forward." Why were the Government so out of touch with the realities of the situation that only a week before this crisis broke they announced the launching of a great scheme of capital construction? Is it safe to go away for 10 weeks and let them do the same kind of thing? I do not propose to argue the merits of the Severn bridge. Everyone in my constituency wants that bridge, but I think that it would be a great mistake, at this moment to go on with a great scheme of capital construction, when we know that we are expending our resources far beyond our means. Let the Lord President of the Council have the courage to say whether the Government are going on with it or not, and let the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport come here, having made an announcement that it was going on——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member said that he did not propose to discuss the Severn tunnel, but he appears to be doing so.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I mentioned it because it was referred to by other speakers, and one end of it happens to be in my Division. The real point about this is that the Government, within the last few weeks, have been utterly out of touch with the speed with which this particular subject is developing.
There is one other point. There might be a case for the Government going away for 10 weeks, even if the situation were fairly serious, if the Government had been pursuing a policy for which they had a mandate, and which manifestly had a vast majority of the nation behind it. That is not the state of affairs today. The Attorney-General announced the other day that the Government of which he is a Member had the vast majority of the public behind them. For what purpose? The policy, so far as one can ascertain it, which is being pursued by the Government today, is one for which they have no conceivable mandate whatsoever; they have not even a shred of mandate. I think it is necessary for Ministers and hon. Members opposite to go back and make contact with their constituents. I think that we shall have rather less talk then about the vast majority being behind the Government.
I am not one of those who think that we ought to sit here and go on sitting all the time. I think that would be quite wrong. I think that we all ought to have a holiday. I propose to have a holiday, and I propose to shoot grouse, if that is of any interest to hon. Members opposite. In pursuing the other matter, to which I would not like to refer, I shall certainly do that for my entertainment as well. I think that it would do all of us good to go for a holiday. But it would be wholly wrong if we were to go away for 10 weeks in the situation which is developing very fast indeed, the full seriousness and gravity of which is not apparent to the whole country, and which I do not believe is even now apparent to His Majesty's Government, a situation for which no solution has been proposed by the Government. Even such matters as they have suggested go only one-third of the way towards solving it. We know on their own admission that they are going to have to do things about three times as harsh as those things they have vaguely suggested at the present time—and we are told to


go away for this period. That would be wrong.
There must be some hon. Members opposite who share that view; there must be many who take their responsibilities towards their constituents as seriously as anyone else. I do not think that they can be altogether happy to go back, to go round their constituencies, perhaps making a few speeches, knowing all the time that their real job is to be here at Westminster, dealing with the situation which is developing very fast indeed. The only way in which they can have any check whatever on the Executive is by being here to challenge them face to face. In those circumstances, I hope that when this matter comes to a Division, it will not be solely a party Division. I hope that one or two hon. Members opposite will have the courage to vote according to their consciences, and vote with us to say that they desire to come back on 16th September to do the job for which they were elected.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. Daines: I wish to deal briefly with the interesting and moving appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the House was during last Session, when I also had the privilege of following the hon. Member. I must say that quite a lot of what he said in regard to the whole situation commended itself to me. It is certainly true that hon. Members on this side of the House have a deep sense of the urgency of the situation, and are not too happy to be going away, leaving the situation where it is. That arises, not from the functioning of the Government and its relationship with back-benchers, but because the duty of His Majesty's Opposition has had to be assumed on these benches because of the inefficiency of the Opposition. That is a situation which we have had repeatedly to face in the House. I am always entranced by the contributions which the hon. Member for Monmouth makes. They are forthright and dashing. In fact, it seems to me that the hon. Member has cast himself for the rôle of the twentieth-century Disraeli. I am sure that he will not misunderstand me if I say that most of us think he fills the rôle of the nineteenth-century Noel Coward. We are, of course, terrifically

concerned, but I would say of the tactics of the Opposition that there is nothing new in His Majesty's Opposition crying havoc. We had not assembled in this House for many weeks when they cried havoc. It has always been "cry havoc."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It has always been true.

Mr. Daines: The Opposition are so weak politically, and have such a poor political sense, that they are incapable of having any sense of tactics. Of course, we are going away, we all need to go away, we all need to be refreshed—no one more than the Opposition. It is not only in the interests of the House that the Government should have opportunities of preparing real plans which will capture the imagination of the country; it is also necessary for the Opposition to go away and try to shape themselves so that they can begin to assume the function of the Opposition, and give real efficiency to the working of Parliamentary Government in this country.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not desire to say anything at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about the merits. I am glad I have hon. Members opposite with me on that. I desire to put to the Government a technical question of some importance, which will probably arise in the event of my right hon. Friend's Amendment not being accepted. I am sorry that the Law Officers have just left. The point I desire to put is not in any sense a party one, but one that does affect the powers of this House.
The point is that under the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill which left this House at ten minutes past eight yesterday morning, the Government will no doubt issue a number of orders. That, I think, is generally agreed, and it is indeed the intention of the Bill. During the discussion of that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President told us very properly that the only Parliamentary control over those orders would be under Section 4 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. That is the only Parliamentary control over these orders, and I think it is accepted on both sides of the House, that it is the form of Parliamentary control


which is the least that is acceptable. Under that Section these orders can only be prayed against within 40 days of being laid before Parliament, subject to a proviso that—
In reckoning any period for the purposes of this subsection—
that is 40 days—
no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
That means, of course, that the time during an ordinary Recess, with both Houses adjourned, is not counted, and the 40 days begin to run from the time the Houses come back.
My right hon. Friend referred to yesterday's proceedings in another place. I may be entitled to say that the possibility of another place being in session during our proposed Recess is one which cannot be eliminated. There is a distinct possibility. I need not say more. The 40 days period during which Prayers against orders can be made runs during the time when either House is sitting. On reading the proviso, it can be seen that the 40 days period does not run during the time in which both Houses are adjourned. It is surely an elementary construction that it does run during the time in which only one House is adjourned. Perhaps the House can see what might happen. Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that the other place resumes on 9th September. Then the 40 days during which a Prayer may be made against orders which have been made before then begins to run from 9th September and would have expired by 20th October, upon which date it is suggested this House should re-assemble.

Mr. Bevan: I do not think that the hon. Member should start that hare, because it is one which will not run very far. It would be most undesirable if there should be a misunderstanding. The decision of another place cannot, in such circumstances, limit the power of the Commons. The Commons itself must sit in order that that provision may come into operation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the Minister of Health has got the point. It is not a question of the decision of the other place or of the

Commons. It is a question of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Bevan: No, but the hon. Member has said that the time begins to run if another place sits, and that, therefore, the order would mature before the House of Commons had an opportunity of considering it—that is the gravamen of the case, it is perfectly simple—and, therefore, the decision of another place, if the hon. Member's reasoning is correct, would, in fact, be taking away from the Commons the right of considering the order. That is a clear point. As I understand the situation, that is not the case. It certainly would be quite unreasonable for irresponsibility exercised somewhere else to limit the authority of the Commons.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether or not it is desirable, I do not propose to be led away to discuss——

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "irresponsibility exercised somewhere else." Is it in Order to suggest that the other place act in an irresponsible manner? I thought that we could not criticise the other place.

Mr. Speaker: If I heard the Minister correctly, he was not speaking of irresponsibility with that meaning, but merely that it was a position which had no regard for this House.

Mr. Bevan: May I make it quite clear? What I meant was that if the construction put upon the Statute by the hon. Member is correct, then indeed it would be an act by another place which would very gravely limit the authority of this place. I do not believe that that construction is a proper one.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I deliberately do not want to get into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman on merits. The point I am trying to get clear, because I think it is important, is what are the legal consequences? I submit that the proviso I read is perfectly clear, and that the 40 days are only suspended during such period as both Houses are adjourned or, though it does not arise hers, prorogued. If that is so—and I should be very interested to hear any argument to the contrary—does it not follow that if another place were sitting during a period in which this House were not sitting, the time during which Prayers could be made against orders, would be running. It is


quite possible that the whole 40 days might have run before this House comes back on 20th October. If that is so, it would be a very serious matter.

Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether the fault was that of another place for sitting, or of this House for not sitting, is a matter upon which there could be legitimate argument on another occasion. I want to clear up the legal position. If this is right—and I think we are entitled to have an answer—one of the consequences of this House adjourning until 20th October may well be that this House would forfeit any power to use the Parliamentary checks which we were told existed under the Act of 1945, in respect of any orders which the Government may make in the next week or two. The constitutional implications of that are quite obvious. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would object to being denied the right to discuss orders. That would be a very serious blow to the authority of this House, and that is the reason I felt it to be my duty to put the point before hon. Members.
We are entitled to a full answer on the legal implications of this. I want to be clear that if the Government's Motion is carried, and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is defeated, our right to pray against Government orders will not be forfeited in any way by reason of the provisions of the Act of 1945. Those provisions were put through when the present situation was not contemplated by hon. Members on either side of the House. We are entitled, before we go away, for whatever period, to be perfectly clear that we have retained our power on this point. I hope that the Government will put up some representative to tell us authoritatively what the position is. I hope that whoever replies will not say, as the Minister of Health said when he interrupted just now, that it would be a bad thing. I hope that whoever replies will be in a position to tell the House what the true position is, whether it be good or bad. We should be told the legal consequences, so that we may make up our minds in the light of that, what we are to do in order to secure the best possible results.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames

(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has raised an important legal question which, I have no doubt, will be answered. If I, as a Member of this House, were asked to agree that the House should not adjourn to enable hon. Members opposite to pray against orders, I should very much question the request because of the way in which the time of this House has been used in the past. The right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition raised the question of complete mistrust in the Government. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to their point of view, but I do not think it is fair to ask this House not to adjourn in the normal way because, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the Government have shown an unwillingness to face facts and have shown the extent to which they have misjudged the situation. We on this side of the House do not accept that point of view. I say definitely that it is hon. Members opposite who on a number of occasions have completely misjudged the facts of the situation. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept the view that the Government have shown a lack of appreciation of the facts and, therefore, cannot be trusted during this period of vacation.
From time to time I have criticised the Government, and I shall continue to claim to exercise my right of conscience. I am perfectly satisfied to put my trust in the Government in this difficult economic situation, knowing full well that if it was necessary to recall the House the Government would do that. If they did not call the House together and the situation was extremely serious in a particular emergency, the Government would receive serious criticism from this side of the House. During the Debates of the last few days it has been said that there is very much worse to come. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) emphasised that point again today. I do not understand this sort of panic which hon. Members opposite are trying to whip up in the House. I can only say that from childhood, I have been told that this country has been on the brink of ruin. I think it was Wilberforce who said the future was so black that he dare not marry. Really, if we are to allow ourselves at the end of a very difficult and hard Session to be whipped into this kind of panic, we shall make a mistake.
Hon. Members opposite have shown time and again, that whatever the Government propose, it is never the right time to put it into effect. During the past year, when we showed quite clearly that it was necessary to ration bread, the Opposition prayed against that, and showed that they did not at all appreciate the situation as the Government did 12 months ago. I submit that no real case has been made out why the House should be recalled earlier than has been suggested by the Government. The Government are entitled to work out carefully schemes for dealing with the situation in the immediate future. I have every confidence that the Government will do the right and proper thing and that, if necessary, they will recall the House to discuss the situation.

1.20 p.m.

Brigadier Rayner: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) took objection to a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who had accused the Government of having been unwilling to face facts. I would like to explain to the House that I entirely agree with that expression of opinion by my right hon. Friend, and on that I shall base the enthusiasm with which I shall vote for the Amendment at the end of this discussion.
In my opinion, the greatest weakness of the Government has been their inability to face facts. In two years of time, they have thrown away the whole of the fruits of victory for one simple reason—their inability to face facts—and we, on this side of the House, during the last four or five days, have performed a very useful service in that we have made the Government face facts. That is the reason I shall vote for this Amendment that we should come back earlier than has been proposed, in order, once again, to make the Government face up to the facts. There is one fact in particular which the Government do not face, and that is that the whole cause of this crisis in the country is the fact that, generally speaking, the country is not prepared to work hard. We have had a series of red herrings dragged across the trail——

Mr. Speaker: This, surely, is part of a speech which might have been delivered the other day.

Brigadier Rayner: I am not going to use the speech which I delivered last week, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to say that the cause of our troubles today is the lack of the will to work hard, and the fact that the Government are showing no leadership at all in this connection. The other day, we saw them, with one hand, placing up the posters "We Work or Want," and, with the other hand, reducing the hours. Now, we find that they are going back on that and increasing the hours again, and we are not surprised, because, if there is one thing which this Government has shown it can do, it is running around in circles—vicious circles.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is whether the date should be 20th October or 16th September.

Brigadier Rayner: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I gathered from your Ruling during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that we could give our reasons why the House should come back on 16th September instead of in October, and I was trying to give them. However, I will finish by saying that this Government is a round peg in a square hole, and "hole" is the word. The right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench look more miserable and harassed every day and obviously have no idea how to get us out of the hole into which their crass inefficiency has got us. I for one am not prepared to give them until 20th October to go on making a mess of things. Therefore, I shall be delighted to vote for the Amendment.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I can look on this matter with a certain impartiality, not being a member of either of the two main parties conducting this discussion, and I recall the history of these discussions. Almost ever since I came into this House, the country has been in a crisis. I do not think it is really my fault; I have always taken the view that it has been the fault of the Tories and the system which they supported, though I must not go into that at the moment. Certainly, every summer, the Opposition has demanded, in one form or another, either that the House should not go away at all or should come back at an earlier stage, or that provision should be made empowering a certain number of


hon. Members, and not merely the Government, to call the House back, or to request you, Mr. Speaker, to recall the House, which I think would be the more correct form, on any suitable occasion. I am bound to say that there were times when I felt a certain sympathy with that plea, but the real question of principle we are discussing today is this: With whom should the initiative lie?
We are all agreed that the House should come back if the crisis develops to such a point that either views of the House or legislation by the House is required, or an explanation by the Government or criticism of the Government is really called for. The Tory-dominated Governments which I have seen in the past, before 1945, always insisted on retaining the initiative in that matter in the hands of the Government. I did not much like it, because I did not much like those Governments. Nobody ever thought that I did like them, but that is a constitutional practice which was well-established. Now, the suggestion is that the House should come back at a point relatively soon in time, so that, in fact, the initiative is taken away from the Government, and we are confronted with a choice between taking 10 weeks' holiday or taking only four or five weeks, with a latent power, of course, to call the House back, which, however, would not be exercised if the Amendment were carried, because the time would be too short.
The only reason which I can think of why anybody suggests that we should depart from what can be described as constitutional practice and come back much sooner was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who, I am glad to see, has now recovered his temper, and who, in fact, never loses it for long. In a very charming speech, the right hon. Gentleman told us that everything done by the other side of the House is wrong, and that, if the Opposition had had the opportunity of doing it, they would have done it differently, but, really, his arguments were not very impressive.
Let us recall the history of this subject. I have plenty of which to complain, in one way or another, about this Government, if I wanted to. They came into power just about two years ago, confronted with a most appalling task, such as no other Government in the world was ever confronted. There were unprecedented

destruction of property, and, above all, of domestic dwellings, the loss of every conceivable market, the loss of every conceivable productive capacity, for the time being, the actions of other people whom I suppose it would be wrong to describe as "shabby moneylenders," because, in fact, they were very bright. They were confronted, among other things, with the problem of getting millions of men out of the Armed Forces and back to work, and confronted also, as we may notice from time to time, by a vigilant well-informed and courageous Opposition, who think they know-all about everything, but who have not succeeded in winning a by-election for months, and who now say that the country is in such a state of crisis that the Government cannot be trusted to go away for a few weeks' holiday.
I think it would be very interesting to have a by-election to see whether the Government are still enjoying the almost undiminished support of the country. My impression is that it docs. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot issue writs; at least, in this place. My impression is that the Government command more support than they deserve, but, at any rate, a great deal more than hon. Members opposite suggest. Surely, unless there is some vital reason for bringing the House back early, there are good reasons for having a holiday? I think that everybody is tired. I am very nearly tired myself, and I, after all, do not have to run the Government, or the Opposition. I do not know which would tire me most. I think it is time that Ministers and hon. Members went down some quiet mousehole and had a little rest. Their work will be all the better for it. I do not think that the Opposition have advanced any convincing reasons for saying "No" to that.
I want to add one other thing, even if it should excite a little resentment. If the House is going to meet again, it will meet for discussion, and if it meets for discussion, the Opposition, as inevitably happens, will do a good deal of the discussing. That seems to me to be the most appalling prospect. I have followed, as best I can, the criticisms and observations of hon. Members opposite, and of all the concentrated nonsense that I have had to listen to in the last 12 years, I think that is the most concentrated nonsense. Take the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill; that was discussed


for hours and hours. I am sorry that a duty which I thought was paramount, for once kept me away for many hours on Monday night and Tuesday morning. It was the first time in my career that I had not been present at an all-night Sitting, I thought about it before the discussion took place, and afterwards when I perused the report. Anything that could reasonably be said about that Bill, or against that Bill, or about its Clauses in Committee, or against its Clauses in Committee, could really have been said by any intelligent controversialist in an hour and a half.

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. You will have heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) discussing the Debate which took place on the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. Is it in Order, when considering the date on which this House is to adjourn, to discuss the value of the arguments put up by the Opposition in the Debate on that Bill?

Mr. Bevan: On that point of Order, and before Mr. Deputy-Speaker gives his Ruling, I would like to point out that I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to be discussing that at all. What he was pointing out was that, because of the character of the speeches made by the Opposition, it would be undesirable to come back and be compelled to listen to more of them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in the difficulty that I did not hear what the hon. and learned Member said, because I was otherwise engaged, and, as there seems to be a diversity of opinion as to what the hon. and learned Member said, he had better proceed with his speech so that I can determine whether or no it is in Order.

Mr. Pritt: I certainly would not want to take advantage of the Opposition in a matter of debate where the boundaries are necessarily somewhat blurred, but the essence of what I was saying was that it is surely relevant to the discussion as to whether we should come back early or not, to consider what we should do when we came back. I suggested that

hon. Members opposite would waste a great deal of public time. I did not put it as offensively as that the first time, but that is the result of prodding me. I gave an illustration of how they had wasted time during the last few days. I do not intend to recite the speeches of hon. Members opposite to show that they were wasting time. I think I have made that sufficiently clear already. There is a great deal too much—particularly in times of what can fairly be called "crisis"—of the Opposition making speeches just because it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. Sometimes, when watching the present Opposition, I have wondered whether it was not the duty of an Opposition to decompose. One hon. Member has suggested that I am making my Monday speech. I am trying to speak on this topic, and I hope that I am keeping fairly well within the confines of it, but, of course, in such discussions, it is always a little difficult, because one hon. Member goes a little too far and then one has to be allowed to answer him.
The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), who spoke immediately before me, succeeded, before he was stopped, in getting across the proposition that the people of this country were not working hard enough, and that that was the reason for the trouble. He represents a class who have never done a willing stroke of work in their lives, and yet he comes here and tells the miners that they are not working hard enough. I do not think that is a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment which be says he will vote for with such enthusiasm. I wonder what his enthusiasm would be like if it was carried and he had to come back. However, I feel that no solid ground has been put forward by the party opposite——

Brigadier Rayner: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? In the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, there was an account of four brothers at Coventry who had been fined for doing a really good job of work in building a house and workshop with their own hands——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. It is obviously not a matter with which I can deal.

Brigadier Rayner: May I come to the point of Order? It is that Mr. Speaker


very properly ruled me out of Order just now when I tried to produce that point. I would like to know, because my knowledge of procedure is not what it should be, whether I can move the Adjournment of the Adjournment Motion in order to consider a matter of great public interest?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. and gallant Member cannot do that.

1.38 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: In moving this Motion for the Adjournment, the Leader of the House adopted such a nonchalant and easy manner that he seemed to take it for granted that the Motion would be accepted by the House as a matter of course. As a fairly old Member of this House, I must say that I am amazed at the lighthearted way in which the supporters of the Government have dealt with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I recall that, at the beginning of this Parliament, one of the first acts of the Government was to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament. The ground on which they based and justified that action was that Members of Parliament, in the pursuit of their duties, had a fulltime job. I do not dispute that, because I can assure the House that I have never worked so hard in my life as I have in this Parliament.

Mr. Alpass: We set the pace for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. Macdonald: Nevertheless, I find it very difficult today to justify going away for three months at this time of crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not three months."] Certain hon. Members have put forward the claim that they must go away, because they have already made plans. I think that claim was made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). For my part, I made plans to go away a couple of months ago.

Mr. George Wallace: I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) make the point. His point was that he had made plans to meet his constituents. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) rather inferred that my hon. Friend had made plans to go away on holiday, and to leave his responsibilities to other people.

Sir P. Macdonald: If the hon. Member had not been so hasty, I was going to deal with the point. It does not matter much to me what plans were made. I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, or anyone else, is going to have a holiday all the time. Some people can have a holiday in their own constituency. As far as I am concerned I made plans a couple of months ago and, what is more, I went away last week. But I saw such glaring headlines in the Press relating to the economic situation that I was alarmed, and I have come all the way back. [Interruption.] I think I have just as serious a sense of responsibility of my duties in this House as hon. Members opposite. Having come back, I was amazed to find confronting me an emergency Bill which had to be rushed through in 48 hours, giving the Government a complete blank cheque to do what they like in order to meet the economic situation, and, having got that Bill through, they are going to disperse for three months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For 10 weeks, then; that is nearly three months. That is a situation I cannot accept, and that is why I most wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).
Another reason why I was almost certain the Government would postpone the Adjournment of this House, was because of the broadcast made by the Prime Minister the other night. That broadcast gave the impression, if it gave any impression at all, that there was a severe financial and economic crisis. So far as I can make out, the Prime Minister asked us to deal with it by harder work and, in some cases, longer hours. What kind of example are the Government themselves setting?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member went away for a holiday when the House was sitting.

Sir P. Macdonald: I agree. Because plans were made, I did go away, but I came back immediately I knew there was a crisis; I certainly came back to oppose the Bill, which I did not see before I went away because it had not been introduced to the House at that time. In his broadcast the Prime Minister exhorted the country to work harder and longer. He certainly told the country that we were faced with a very severe crisis. I read in "The Times" a letter from a


farmer who said that he listened to that broadcast because he was very anxious, as a farmer and a producer, to know what the Prime Minister was going to say, and what lead he was going to get, because he was told that agricultural production was necessary.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the date on which the House is to reassemble? Are we in Order in discussing the content of the Prime Minister's broadcast? Surely, that is entirely outside the range of this discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It has been extremely difficult to confine this Debate within clearly defined limits, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far.

Sir P. Macdonald: I understood that other hon. Members had gone very wide from the Motion, but I apologise if I have gone too far.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I suggest that this is an opportunity for the hon. Member to set a good example?

Sir P. Macdonald: I do not wish to take up too much time, because I know others want to speak. Very good reasons have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington why this House should come back on 16th September.

Mr. Alpass: If the Amendment is carried, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he and other hon. Members opposite will come back and attend better than they have done?

Sir P. Macdonald: My attendance is just as good as that of the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass). Reasons have been given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition why we on this side of the House think that the Government should return before 21st October. We are running out of dollars; there is the economic situation generally, and there is also an absence of policy with regard to exports, and various other matters. I can give one or two more reasons. During the Recess, one of my duties as a Member of a Select Committee will be to proceed to Germany. I should be prepared, and still am, to give up part of my holiday for that purpose, with other Members on

both sides of the House, but I must say that before we go on this mission to report on the economic situation in Germany, I think it will be very difficult for us to form any conclusions unless we have a pronouncement of policy in relation to that country. At present, as far as I understand, there is a complete lack of high policy with regard to Germany. We were told recently that there is to be a fusion of zones with one of our Allies, and we all acclaimed that as a very good thing indeed. Since then, I am told that owing to a clash of ideologies between ourselves and our Allies, there is a hold-up of the introduction——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what that has to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Sir P. Macdonald: I thought it was a very good reason why we should all come back and hear a statement of policy and, if necessary, discuss it. But I will not pursue that matter. All I have to say is that I wholeheartedly support this Amendment, and I certainly commend it to the House. As far as I am concerned, I could not justify myself either to my conscience or to my constituents in going away for 10 weeks at this time.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Ministers and Members of the party opposite in the earlier and, perhaps, more lively stages of this Debate have shown a certain nervosity which I quite understand. I think it is natural, after a very hard year's work, that Ministers should try to get the House away. Certainly, in recent weeks they have not had very much to enjoy in the Debates which we have had. No doubt, there are other reasons why they are anxious to get away; continual quarrels and rifts must be very exhausting. I read today that Ministers are to have, like everybody else, staggered holidays. I certainly think they should have holidays. I do not know whether it is quite fair for them to have staggered holidays when one goes to Blackpool and another to Burma; I do not know how it works out, but we must leave it to them. We would be very foolish if we were not to recognise that after a very strenuous Session, the whole House requires a reasonable change and some holiday, in addition to all the work which we do in our constituencies. Therefore, we have moved an Amendment which


would ensure not that we should continue the Session permanently, but that we should come back to see how things are going, have a Debate, and then arrange a further Adjournment in the light of the situation then existing.
The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to other occasions when Motions or Amendments of this kind had been moved relating to the Adjournment of the House. I think he was wrong in saying that on previous occasions it was a question as between the initiative of the Government and that of private Members. Great Debates on this subject have often turned on Motions to fix a date different from that moved by the Government of the day. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would refresh his memory, as I have refreshed mine. He has a reputation for supporting minorities, and I hope he will do so today.

Mr. Pritt: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in no summer between 1935 and 1945 have Tory Members sought to move that the return of the House should depend on the initiative of private Members rather than on that of the Government?

Mr. Macmillan: No. I was referring to great occasions—rather historic occasions. In 1941 there was a Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Fuel and Power. After Debate, so reasonable were the Coalition Government of that day, that the Prime Minister, then deputy Leader of the House, accepted the Motion and cut the holiday in two. That was in December, 1941. I am now coming to great Debates on other occasions. A long and important Debate took place in the summer of 1944. On another occasion there was, as my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition reminded the House, a plea that we should adjourn for five weeks—not ten, but five. That was the summer, if hon. Members will cast their minds back to it, when Field-Marshal Alexander's armies were sweeping through Italy, after the capture of Rome, after the successful landings in France, when the war was going very well, and we were about to win the war. My right hon. Friend was courteous. I shall go rather farther than him, and say that now—instead of winning the war as we were then—we are losing the fruits of victory.
My mind goes back to, perhaps, the greatest of these Debates. It lasted a whole day. It was in the summer of 1939. I remember that Debate. It was one of the most historic Debates in this House. The Motion of the Government was to adjourn until 3rd October—not 20th October, but 3rd October. The Amendment to that Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister without' Portfolio was that we should adjourn until the 20th August—for only three weeks. In moving that Motion he used these words:
I want to put it quite bluntly. A considerable number of Members of this House … do not trust this Government.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 2427.]
I am not sure I would go as far as that now, but I would go as far as to say that I do not wholly trust this Government. That Debate was memorable for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That Debate will always remain in my memory because it was notable also for a speech by the then Member for King's Norton, which was one of the most dramatic speeches I have ever heard in this House. It was, alas, the last speech that he ever made. There was brought to an untimely end a wonderful and brilliant career.

The question at issue was whether the House should adjourn for a long period, or come back sooner in view of the character of the situation as it appeared to hon. Members who put forward the plea for a shorter Adjournment. It was not—and is not now—a question of coming back necessarily to transact the normal business of the House, but to come back to take counsel together, to get some statement from the Government of the day, either on external affairs, which were then the main problem, or on home affairs; and, having heard that statement and taken counsel, to decide what it is the duty of the House to do. I think that if ever there was an occasion when that course was suitable to the dignity and the propriety of the House of Commons, it certainly is the occasion in which we now find ourselves.

My right hon. Friend was forced to say that one of our major anxieties is that the Government have failed in the past to take notice of warnings. My


right hon. Friend quoted in support of his argument on the question of the balance of dollars and the running out of the dollar loan, an article written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) in March, 1947—so recently as that—pooh-poohing all the possibility of a rapid using up of our dollar resources. That article was quoted with approval by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite have stated in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the American price level had not begun to rise at that stage, to make an alteration in the value of the commodities we could buy. That will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the House at the time.

Mr. Pritt: Then why tell us again?

Mr. Macmillan: Unfortunately, the hon. Members who said that were wrong in their facts. I will re-state the facts. The American price level in January, 1946, was 107; in July, 1946, the American commodity price level was 124; in January, 1947, it was, 141; the article was written in March; in May, the level was 146; and in July it was 150. Therefore, there has been a total rise during the whole period of the dollar loan of 43 points; and 36 took place before the writing of the article, and only seven afterwards. Therefore, as a defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that argument is as slender as most of the arguments hon. Gentlemen have on which to rely for their defence.
Once more we have to decide what course it is the duty of the House to take-On previous occasions—there have been many great occasions, and I have quoted two or three—Governments have some-, times acceded to the views expressed by a minority of the House; sometimes they have resisted. I do not think that the precedent of the refusal to accept by the Government of 1939 is a happy one. On other occasions, Governments have accepted partially the consideration of the views put before them. But, at any rate, there do not apply here many of the alibis which it is now the practice of His Majesty's Government to plead for everything that goes wrong—for nothing is their fault: it is always the fault of somebody or something else, the weather, Tory misrule or the failure of the price level, of

which they took no notice until it had grown large. So much do they rely on alibis that I am reminded of the advice of old Mr. Weiler, "Samivel, Samivel, we ought to have an alibi." The Government have never forgotten that advice.
Unless Parliament be dissolved—ah, if it were dissolved there would, indeed, be a great solution to our problems. Then the country would be able to carry the burdens that lie upon it. But unless Parliament is dissolved, and until that happens—and then there would be plenty of holidays for many hon. Members below the Gangway—the House of Commons is still the master of its life and work. It can decide how and when it shall sit. On all the previous occasions there have been members in more than one part of the House who supported such a plea as we are making today. I confidently appeal to hon. Members to support our plea today. In days past there were independent Members in all parts of the House——

Mr. Gallacher: There were just 63 on Tuesday morning.

Mr. Macmillan: I appeal with confidence to all hon. Members, certainly to those of my party, and also to those of the Liberal Party to support us in this matter. There are even some independent Members in this House of Commons who are Members of the Labour Party.—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'even'"?] We have heard them in the Debates. I appeal to all men who really value the position the House of Commons should take at such an immense moment in our history, to give at least an example by taking the trouble to come back here sooner than the Government propose to hear a statement from the Government, and, in the light of events at that moment, and in the light of that statement, to decide upon the future action of the House.

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Member was good enough to quote the rise in American commodity prices, and he gave certain details. Has he had those figures broken down, so that we can see the prices of the commodities which we were mainly buying with the dollar loan?

Mr. Macmillan: No. I obtained these figures partly from the Government, and partly from the Chancellor's speech, which gave some figures. But these figures are


not put out in full for the information of hon. Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the difficulty in obtaining accurate figures when the full sources of information are not published. My figures were obtained as a result of much work and delving into certain sources, but these matters are published very little. I cannot break them down into the whole range of commodities. I would say, broadly speaking, the most important commodities, being on the longest-term contracts, are least affected by a rise in prices.

2.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: As to three-quarters of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), we have had one of the most logical, coherent and relevant speeches which has been made in this Debate. For the greater part of his speech he kept to the point, although it is true to say that at the latter end he got on to the somewhat wider field which, undoubtedly, is in Order because it has been so ruled—and I do not question that a bit. That wider field was covered amply, and I think with some extreme feeling, by the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, indeed, was nearer to the wild irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition than he is usually. If I recall aright, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) got as far as recalling what happened in 1940 about some Adjournment or other, and he said that our situation today was more serious than in 1940.

Mr. Eden: In some respects.

Mr. Morrison: I thought that was rather an extreme partisan observation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The President of the Board of Trade said so.

Mr. Morrison: Did he? Well, I will tell the right hon. Member for Bromley what he himself said yesterday. I am bound to say, I prefer the moderation and more realistic tone of the right hon. Member for Bromley, today, because yesterday he said——

Mr. Macmillan: At 8.0 a.m., just before breakfast.

Mr. Morrison: We were dealing with the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. I think he put his views forward, and repeated them with

absolute sincerity and clarity, as he always does. He said:
I do not agree … that we are in a position as serious as during the war in the period from 1940.
He later went on to say:
Nor do I believe we are up against difficulties such as those in 1940.

Mr. Macmillan: Read what I said about the reasons.

Mr. Morrison: We only need courage and a renewal of our faith to make a big inroad into the path of progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2228.]

Mr. Macmillan: I gave the reasons; people being killed and wounded.

Mr. Morrison: Of course. I prefer the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley today to that of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. Indeed, if there is anything I deprecate about this Debate it is certainly this: Undoubtedly, the country is facing some serious economic difficulties, which nobody denies, and about which certainly nobody on this side of the House is happy or pleased; but I sometimes think hon. Members opposite are happy and pleased about it. I sometimes feel that they think that the more the country is in trouble, the better politically it is for them. The fact that a whole series of speakers have gone out of their way today, after this week of pretty acid and controversial Debate about a Bill which need not have been controversial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It really need not have been, and when hon. Members opposite compare the proceedings of yesterday and today in another place with what happened in this House, I think they may be ashamed of themselves.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Tell that to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Morrison: What have the Opposition been doing all the time? They have used every conceivable opportunity—even to the point of stretching the Debate—not for the purpose of helping the country in its economic difficulties, not to encourage the nation to put its best foot forward, not to seek to steady the national nerve, which is vital in these critical times, but they have, every time, gone out of their way and done their very best to stir up mud and trouble, to cause people to be


nervous, frightened and jittery if they could; in fact to do everything they could politically to impede the success of the nation's efforts to solve its economic difficulties. That has been the role of this Opposition. Some of them have made speeches encouraging other countries not to co-operate with this country.

Mr. James Stuart: We have not called the Americans "shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry the Opposition Chief Whip should be so noisy.

Mr. Stuart: We did not call them,"shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison: If I remember rightly, there have been references by Conservative people to the nation being in pawn?

Mr. Stuart: "Shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison: I know, but have there not been references from Conservative people about the nation being in pawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is all right, if nobody said it, because otherwise it would be an allegation of pawnbroking somewhere.

Mr. Stuart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stand up."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were "living on tick."

Mr. Pritt: The Tories have done it for centuries.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, the Chancellor said that. He sometimes stands up for the Conservatives; he almost seems to enjoy it. I am bound to say, this active intervention by the Opposition Chief Whip is causing me apprehension as to whether I have any moral authority over my own Whips in keeping them silent any more. The Opposition Chief Whip has come into the Chamber full of life and vigour, and if he comes to the conclusion that he ought to be a debater in the House instead of a Chief Whip, nobody will welcome him into the ranks of the debaters more than I shall. I say that the Opposition, at every conceivable time, and in every conceivable way, have taken such opportunities as they could to unsteady the nation, to weaken its nerve, and to weaken its industrial effort in the belief and on the basis that if the nation gets into an economic mess it is

not a bad thing, because it will be embarrassing to His Majesty's Government. And I say that such opposition is pure negative opposition and not particularly useful in the life of our country.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare) rose——

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give way. I have said before in this matter, that in three-quarters of this economic field it is not a matter of party politics at all, but a matter in respect of which we ought all, Government, Opposition and everybody else, to make the best contribution we can, objectively, to what is needed.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Tell the Attorney-General.

Mr. Morrison: But the Opposition constantly say that the Government have no ideas. After having listened to the detailed speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It was a detailed programme. Has any Member of this House ever heard a constructive detailed programme from the Opposition? I am sorry to say these things, and I intend now to get away from them. But I must say that the Opposition at this juncture are lacking in public spirit. They are doing all they can, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, to injure the nation in these times of trouble, and judged by any reasonable standard of good public conduct and spirit they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Having followed the order and scope of this Debate, I now come back to the date. We are discussing two dates; one is 20th October, and the other 16th September.

Sir Waldron Smithers: And 5th November.

Mr. Morrison: That is a very natural observation from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). We have put down a Motion for the resumption of the House on 20th October. We have put it down, of course, in accordance with the usual custom and practice, and, indeed, subject to the Sessional Order, namely, that if His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion—and if the circumstances warrant it, we shall certainly be sympathetic about it and give consideration to


it—that it is in the public interest that the House should resume earlier, then we shall make representations to Mr. Speaker and to the Lord Chancellor in another place. I freely give that undertaking to the House. I cannot see that it would be useful at this juncture that we should meet earlier than that date, unless the circumstances warrant it. It is perfectly true that another place has decided to meet earlier.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: It is competent for another place, as it is for this House, to decide when it shall meet. I am not going to comment upon it, and I am not sure that I would get very far if I did try to do so. It was commented on by the acting Leader of the Opposition, and, therefore, perhaps I may say that I am sorry there is to be this difference. I think it is untidy. If action were taken in relation to a Defence Regulation—and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) called attention to this—it would be a bit awkward. It would be a bit awkward if their Lordships annulled a Regulation, just as if they disagreed with any particular thing, but in their present mood, judged by the way they have handled this Bill, I think we can trust their Lordships better than we can trust the Opposition in this House. However, we cannot help it, as it is competent for either House to resolve when it shall meet. I have no power over another place, and another place has no power over the House of Commons in this respect.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to answer the question I put in his absence, namely, whether the effect of another place sitting earlier may not be to deprive this House of the possibility of moving to annul an order?

Mr. Morrison: This House is in no worse position because another place is to meet earlier. It is perfectly true that this House will not be able to annul a Defence Regulation until we come back, whatever the date may be, and if another place comes back earlier, it will, in that respect, be able to act more speedily.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: During my speech, I ventured to invite the attention of the House to the proviso in Section 4 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, which

says that if one House is sitting, the period of 40 days during which a Prayer may be moved continues to run, even if the other House may not be sitting. I put the point that the 40 days might expire before we came back, and, therefore, we might have no chance to discuss the annulment of an order.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Member's speech, but like the right hon. Gentleman, I was getting something to bite at that moment. I see his point, and I admit straight away that it is difficult, and that it raises a difficulty. If it happened, we should have to see what we could do about it. I would certainly examine it. It is one of the reasons why it would have been better perhaps if the practice hitherto adopted had obtained, and there had been synchronisation in the Sittings of this House and another place. However, I have no authority over another place, and I am afraid there is nothing we can do about it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington covered the very wide ground of economic and financial policy. I am so sorry that I cannot deal with these matters, because, quite frankly, I came here equipped for a Debate on the dates when the House should resume. Perhaps my imagination was deficient and I may be faulty in that respect, but I suggest that if these matters were to be raised, notice might have been given, just as with the other matters which are to be debated later on. The right hon. Gentleman could never have expected that I would enter on the whole and varied field of economic and financial policy on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to a particular date. He must, therefore, forgive me for not replying to his points, just as I will have to forgive him for making them.

Mr. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how serious it all is?

Mr. Morrison: I do, and I wish the Opposition, instead of playing about as they have been doing in the matter of politics, had taken a serious view of the situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred to the Sessional Order which I have dealt with, and said that he would like to have a provision whereby


40 Members could recall the House. I should not like to have such a provision, nor would anyone else in power. Judging by the way hon. Members in various quarters sign papers, I do not know how often the House would have to sit if it required only 40 Members to make the request. I think it is rather a light-hearted proposition.

Mr. C. Davies: I am not sure, but I think that in 1931 the right hon. Gentleman supported such a Motion which was brought before the House.

Mr. Morrison: It is an unfortunate historic fact that I was rejected as the Member for South Hackney in the 1931 Election, and so I do not think I could have supported such a Motion. Whoever did it at any time, I say that it is a foolish idea.
The Adjournment of the House is for three purposes. First of all—I am not talking about Ministers, because we are not allowed to claim any consideration for ourselves, and I being a modest Minister would be the last to do so—hon. Members have had a hard Session and they have said so; indeed, it has been complained that we have worked the House too hard, but now they object to having a fair stretch away. The House has been hard-working, and I think there are signs of stress and strain, especially on the opposite side in the last few weeks, and that hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, would be all the better for a break. Members of Parliament are entitled to a holiday. I am glad that it has been said that so are Ministers of the Crown, who, I hope, are going to have one—I am going to have one—because it is good for us to have a holiday, otherwise we shall be a ragged lot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking about the House, not the Government. Secondly,

Members need to renew contact with their constituents to lead them in the path of light and learning, and that refreshing renewal of intimacy will be all to the good. Thirdly, Members of Parliament need time for reading. They will need to read during the Recess to improve their minds, and I hope also that all Members will busy themselves in the country and help in the economic drive for the well-being of the country as a whole. I invite all hon. Members, from whatever part of the House they come, to assist in that direction.

For all these reasons Members are entitled to a break, but this is not going to be a holiday, and it is a misuse of term to say that it will be a holiday. Members are going to have a break and a holiday but they are also going to do work which is strictly relevant to their duties as Members of this House. That is the case, and for these reasons and in all the circumstances—the House having had two and a half hours or so of discussion in which hon. Members have expressed a variety of views about a variety of subjects—I hope that the House will now be good enough to come to a conclusion on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman and on the Motion which I have moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Paliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Monday, 2oth October' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 84.

Division No. 383.]
AYES.
[2.30 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bing, G. H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Binns, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Collick, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Attewell, H. C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cook, T. F.


Barstow, P. G.
Bramall, E. A.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Barton, C.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brooks, T. J, (Rothwell)
Corvedale, Viscount


Belcher, J. W.
Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Cove, W. G.


Benson, G.
Burden, T. W.
Crawley, A.


Berry, H.
Burke, W. A.
Daines, P.


Beswick, F.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Champion, A. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)




Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAllister, G.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McEntee, V La T.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McGhee, H. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Diamond, J.
McGovern, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Skeffigton, A. M.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mathers, G.
Steele, T.


Farthing, W. J.
Mayhaw, C P.
Stephen, C.


Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Messer, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Gallacher, W.
Moody, A. S.
Stubbs, A. E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morley, R.
Swingler, S.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Gordon -Walker, P. C.
Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Moyle, A
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nally, W
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Guest, Dr. L Haden
Meal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Guy, W. H.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hannan, W, (Maryhill)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Tolley, L.


Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


House, G.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B. T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Peart, Thomas F.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pritt, D. N.
Wigg, Col, G. E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pryde, D. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Gmdr. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Key, C. W.
Ranger, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Leslie, J. R.
Rankin, J.
Yates, V. F.


Lever, N. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Levy, B. W.
Rhodes, H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lindgren, G. S.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Zilliacus, K.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Logan, D. G.
Robertson. J. J. (Berwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Lyne, A. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, H. Wilson
Nicholson, G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boothby, R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bossom, A. C
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hulchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D.


Byers, Frank
Lancaster Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col R. S.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Teeling, William


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Touche, G. C.


De la Bère, R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Diamond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maude, J. C



Fox, Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Moore, Lt-Col. Sir T.
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and




Major Ramsay.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That no Questions be taken on Monday, 20th October, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — PLACE OF SITTING (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)

Message from His Majesty considered [12th August].

Message again read.

Ordered:
That on Monday, 20th October next, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session, this House do meet in St. Stephen's Hall."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. W. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES

2.34 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I wish to deal with a subject which, I am sure, the House will be glad to know, after the turmoil of the previous Debate, should raise no controversies within the House itself. I am sure that I have the sympathy of the House when I say that at any moment, for reasons which I cannot explain, the proceedings are liable to be interrupted, and as this is a serious subject, I am concerned not to get to the gist of my speech before then. I am sure that the Leader of the House will be glad to know that I am raising what I think is a non-controversial subject, and I shall display none of those maniacal tendencies which he feared could be attributed to me when he intervened in an earlier Debate. I think it is generally agreed that it is high time that we should discuss this matter. I can perhaps fill the time before the interruption to which I have referred by quoting to the House, before I come to the point which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary, some information which I have received, through the husbands of

these ladies themselves, about this situation. I think it will interest the House.
I am informed that during and just after the war about 30 officers, other ranks and officials connected with various British Missions in Moscow, Murmansk and elsewhere, contracted marriages with Soviet girls. The first point I wish to make, which is an important one, is that the Soviet raised no objection to those marriages, put no objection in the way. They would have been perfectly entitled to have made representations to His Majesty's Government, and to have said, "We do not like your nationals, who are members either of your Missions or of your Armed Forces, marrying Soviet girls." No such objections were made, and these marriages are valid in Soviet law and are also valid in British law. The marriages were registered at Soviet marriage bureaux and they were also registered with His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow. I have the authority of one gentleman concerned to say that he was given a special visa by the Soviet authorities for the avowed purpose of going to marry his wife. That shows that the Soviet authorities put no impediment whatever in the way.
Of these 30 wives—it is important that the House should have those figures in mind for a reason which will be apparent in a moment—about 15 were granted permission to come to this country, the most recent permission having been granted as late as 1945. There are still 15 wives remaining in Russia, with their five children, and they have been told that they will never be allowed to join their husbands in this country. I understand, and the Under-Secretary will be able to correct me if I am wrong, that the legal position is that the wives and children are bi-national, that is to say they are British in British law and Soviet citizens by Soviet law. The point I wish to make, and with which any hon. Member of the House who is a lawyer, who has had legal experience would agree, is that it is by no means an unprecedented state of affairs. It has happened before in international law.

Mr. Pritt: indicated assent.

Earl Winterton: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for North


Hammersmith nods his head in assent. Never before, so far as I know, has any country placed the obstacles in the way of wives joining their husbands which the Soviet Government have done in the case of these wives. I must say frankly, tough politician that I am, that I am horrified by the information which has reached me about the position of these unfortunate——

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1947.
2. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.
3. Electricity Act, 1947.
4. Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947.
5. North Cumberland Water Board Act, 1947.
6. Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1947.
7. Preston Corporation Act, 1947.
8. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947.
9. London Passenger Transport Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES

Question again proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."

2.49 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I was saying before this House went to another place that 15 out of the 30 Russian wives who had married British subjects had been permitted to leave Russia. I went on to say that the position of the others, as evidenced by the correspondence which I have here and with which I do not propose to trouble the House, was a most grievous one. I will select only one or two points from this correspondence. Four of the wives in the provinces have great difficulty in communicating with their husbands. One of these ladies has been ill, and she recently wrote to her husband to ask if he wished to divorce her, as she had received no letter from him for three weeks. The husband writes without fail every week. This is one of the many general complaints, that letters sent to and written by these Russian

wives fail to reach the wives or husbands as the case may be. The economic situation in the Soviet Union makes living extremely difficult for these separated wives and their children. They cannot get work in ordinary circumstances, although the Embassy is employing some of them.
May I take the opportunity of saying, as I see an hon. Lady opposite who has taken a very humanitarian interest in this matter as, indeed, Members in all parts of the House have done, that I am assured by these gentlemen married to these Russian wives that they deeply appreciate the sympathy which hon. Members have shown to them. Some of these girls—and they are only girls, many of them 19 or 20 years of age—I understand, have received demands to pay the childlessness tax, which is payable by ail women over the age of 20 in the Soviet Union. Of course, this only applies to girls over 20, but some, married before they were 20, are now being charged with the tax, which amounts to some 1,500 roubles a year. My informant says, speaking on behalf of these husbands:
The irony of this is obvious, and we feel this to be the cruellest blow of all. One girl has been threatened with imprisonment if she does not pay.
I could quote a great many other cases of hardship, but I will not do so.
I want to say, at the outset of my speech, that I wish to confine my remarks solely and simply to this one issue, and not to Anglo-Soviet relationship in general. That, so far as this bench is concerned, is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I think that I shall be more likely to succeed in my object—that is to bring this matter to the attention of the House—if I confine myself directly to the question of these Russian wives and not to Soviet policy generally. I think that it is not for me, and that it would be a gross piece of impertinence for me, to suggest that should be the line followed by other hon. Members, but I would suggest, if I may do so in the most humble manner, that is the line that might be followed.
What is the justification for us, on both sides of the House, raising this question? I would like to put it in three or four contentions. I would say, at the outset, that this matter is only a drop in the ocean of misery in the world today in which men and women have forsaken the teaching


of Christ and the leaders of every other religion, and in which justice, tolerance, truth and mercy are even rarer than food and housing. But, although this is only a drop in the ocean of misery, it is poignant enough for those concerned. I would go on, secondly, to say that this country has, to its eternal credit, ever asserted the cause of justice and right in the case of an individual or individuals, however humble. Thirdly, I would say that the formidable corporate protests of Parliament have sometimes resounded round the world and caused, in the past, nations, far more materially powerful than these Islands, to pause and think again where injustice has been done or was about to be done to British subjects. The same influence may have some effect on those whom we still call, very properly, our Soviet Allies.
I would ask, on behalf of those Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, for the strongest possible support for our protest from public opinion outside. Particularly, may I say without offence—and I am very anxious to say nothing to offend—that there is a duty that rests on the Christian churches in this matter. They place the very highest importance on husbands and wives not being separated, and I would suggest that someone, for example a man like the Dean of Canterbury, who has spoken very strongly on Anglo-Soviet relationship, and who is possibly of the opinion that the Soviet system is analogous to Christianity—I would like to see him speak up, and others who have taken an interest in this matter. I put this to you, Mr. Speaker, to him and to others outside this House that I think that he has a duty to the church to which he belongs, and others who have spoken on this matter who belong to the churches have a duty to express an opinion on this question.
Perhaps one reason, as important as any of the reasons which I have given, is that I think that we in this House and the country generally are entitled to know the reasons for the Soviet action, which seems so extraordinary in the case of the relationship of one country to another. Those reasons have never been given publicly. I do not know why the Soviet has done this. I have heard very unflattering suggestions as to the real

reason for their action, which I am not even going to hint at, because I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will feel that he ought to give the reasons. I do not know what they are, but I think that I am entitled to propound a question, and to ask him: What are the reasons, and what fault have these people committed?
Is there any other action which His Majesty's Government can take, or any other pressure which they can apply? I suggest that there are two, possibly three, further courses which they could take. First, I think that the official correspondence on the subject should be published—I think that very important—in the form of a White Paper, so that we may know the alleged reasons for the Soviet action. Then, I think, that His Majesty's Government should consider who is the appropriate international authority to which an appeal should be made. I cannot believe that with the existence of U.N.O., the Supreme Council, and all the other means which there are for exchanging views between the Allies, and for getting the protests of the Allies or any country considered, it would be right to refrain from bringing this matter before the appropriate international body, whatever it may be. It makes nonsense of the talk of international co-operation if when what is regarded by hundreds and thousands of people in this country as a plain injustice is done to British subjects, that injustice could not be considered by some international body.
Finally, I make this suggestion, although I do not want to embarrass the Government. I have carefully refrained from making any hostile references to the Soviet Government, and I do not want to end my speech on that note, but I think that here a very delicate and embarrassing position arises. I think that if the Soviet Government continue to take up this attitude, pending the hearing of the question by some international body, the Soviet Government should be informed that it is embarrassing—I put it no higher than that—to His Majesty's Government to provide visas for the wives of members of Russian delegations. Obviously, they could not refuse visas to members of the actual Embassy. We are always reading of Russian delegations


coming to this country, such as trade delegations, and delegations from the Soviet Parliament. Some were received in this country, and in this House, I believe. I think it should be said that so long as these British wives—British Soviet wives, because we regard them as British subjects—are treated in this way, it is embarrassing to His Majesty's Government, and to Members of this House also I should have thought, to receive the wives of members of Russian delegations. I am quite prepared to be told that that would not be a proper way of doing things and would only irritate the Soviet Government.
I am most grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the attention which they have given to this matter and I think they will acquit me of any intention to make cither party capital or international mischief out of it. Relying, as I have always done in the 42 years I have been in this House, upon the generosity of hon. Members, I would like to add that this matter almost keeps me awake at night. I hate to think of the anguish through which these people are going, and I hope that hon. Members, whatever their political opinions may be, will agree that this separation is quite unnecessary and only adds to the general horrors of today's world.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in relation to this question. I have in my mind grave doubts about the effect of any Debate in this House upon the subject of these British Soviet wives, and whether the Kremlin is prepared to listen to the voice raised in this Parliament on almost any issue of which one can conceive. I hate the regime in Russia. I make no bones about that. I hate the methods that are adopted. If the Russians are to have international co-operation of any kind with the outside world one would expect that arrangements would be reciprocated by the Soviet Government and that they would attempt to deal humanely and justly with issues of this description.
The Soviet Government and the Kremlin have sent it out to the world that they are the internationalists in the world,

that they have thrown over the old capitalist moral code and instituted a more humanitarian code and process. But events like this give a direct lie to statements that are made by those individuals and by their defenders. It was always said, in my early days in the Labour movement, that Governments and regimes were known mostly by the things they did to isolated citizens, injustices and acts that lacked humanitarianism. These women have committed no crime. Their husbands have committed no crime. Indeed, they have been moderate in their attitude on this question. They have resisted the more extreme denunciations regarding the regime and its behaviour.
Statements have been made from time to time that the regime in Russia cannot allow this moderate number of women to leave Russia. Those statements become just a lie. Why should any nation with 180 million human beings require the retention of some 30 women? The Russians have shown lack of reason as applied to these women. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) intends to add his voice in appeal, so that the Russians will know that Members of this House, although closely tied to the Soviet Government, are not bound hand and foot, and tongue, to that Government, and can stand up for the rights of British citizens as well as defend the interests of the Soviet Government in all its actions throughout the world.
Therefore, I say, realising, reading, studying and knowing the activities in Russia, that I really begin to fear for the safety of individuals who raise matters in this House. If one is to accept even moderately the statements in Jan Valtin's "Out of the Night" and "I Chose Freedom," by Kravchenko, and others, one knows that the punishment of individuals, who may have had nothing to do with the raising of an issue, may be of a very severe character. Therefore, I wonder. I believe that the Soviet Government do not intend to listen to the voice of reason from any part of the world and that there is a great fear operating. I believe that the Soviet Government are determined to smash through all agreements, frontiers and incidents, in order to achieve their will.
With the noble Lord, I am driven to ask for what reasons the Soviet Government refuse to allow these 30 women to come into this country? If the Soviet system is such that it would attract supporters among the workers in every part of the world then the Soviet Government should be delighted to have such missionaries going into those countries, praising the Soviet system and saying in a propaganda sense, "You ought to have a similar system to ours, because it is superior to the British, American and other so-called democracies," but they do not say that. Are the Soviet Government lacking in faith about their own system? Have they a fear that no case can be made Out for the superiority of their system? Indeed, do they fear these 30 women coming as missionaries to this country, telling the truth of what is actually happening in the Soviet Union because what they would say might do more damage to the Soviet Union than anything they might say in praise of the system they had left behind?
I am driven, through all the sordid things that are happening in this war-weary and torn world of tragedy, to believe that the Soviet Government are afraid to allow these individuals to come to this country to tell the truth about this Soviet El Dorado and New Jerusalem that is in operation in Russia. Not only that: I say further, when the noble Lord suggests that we might consider reciprocal action of some kind, that although I do not believe in unjust punishments I want to know whether this country is to take all the kicks, the hidings and all the false propaganda, and is to be always on the defensive, accepting it all, and at the same time to get down, grovelling, before the Soviet State?

Earl Winterton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member. I am sure his reference to me is intended to be friendly. No one has made more violent speeches in this country against the Soviet Union than I, yet I refrained from doing it in connection with this case. I confined my remarks to the narrow issue. I had very much in mind the position of these unfortunate people.

Mr. McGovern: I am taking my own line on this issue. I have never been a believer that grovelling before any State did any good. I believe that if we are

against any form of injustice we should stand forthright and state the things in which we believe. We must consider whether or not things have come to the stage where the word or attitude of the State can be depended upon on any issue. The issue of these 30 women is a small one. The ordinary member of the public is absolutely amazed that the Soviet Union refuses to allow them to come here. This country has been generous in allowing every form of national to enter the country and allowing her own people to leave to go to the uttermost ends of the earth. The public cannot understand why we should have footballers, diplomats and delegations here and that at the same time these women should be denied the opportunity of coming to this country.
People may say that it is a small sentimental issue. Any man or woman who has no sentiment is completely dead from the shoulders up. I refuse to agree that any individual, the most hard-boiled—even the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith—has no sentiment in his being. I am quite satisfied that everyone has. There is the sentiment of love for our wives and our children. We can, surely, understand the feelings of individuals who have fallen in love with young women, become attached to them, lived with them and, in some cases, had children by them. This is a tremendous issue for them individually. These individuals are perplexed. They feel that their whole aim in life is being defeated by the refusal of a so-called great State to allow this action. That State cannot be great when it stoops to actions of this kind in the case of a number of young men and women, many of whom have served in the war in the purpose of the Allied cause.
I have seen the stupid acts which have been perpetrated both by the Soviet Government and by their fellow-travellers in this country, and by the Communist Party, and I have wondered from where they got their advice. Their actions were stupid and against popular and public opinion in this country. But if their defenders in this country can make their voice heard—if they are not afraid to do that—it would be of assistance. Hon. Members should note that the people who defend the Soviet Union are closely allied to them. I do not blame them for that. They attack everybody in this country


but their voice has never been heard criticising anybody in the Kremlin because they dare not do that. Therefore, I say that if they can make their influence felt, if they can show to the world that they are not tied hand, foot and tongue to this regime, if they can dare to stand up for British citizens as well as Soviet citizens, if they can raise their voices urging the Soviet Government to reconsider this issue, then, much as I am opposed to the regime, I would like them to succeed. I think they have great opportunities if they act differently and attract the eyes and the ears of the world to the system of which they are laying the foundations. I refuse to accept the view that the attitude adopted is anything in the nature of a humanitarian attitude. If these people, by word or action, can get a reconsideration of this issue and persuade the Soviet Government to act more humanely and intelligently and give these young people an opportunity to go through life as they ought to be, united in marriage, I am sure that even at this late date, it will redound to their credit. There will be general acclamation, no matter what may be the point of view of any hon. Member of this House, that they had at least taken one intelligent action on the road to building up a humanitarian State in Russia.

3.15 p.m.

Brigadier Low: I am sure hon. Members will agree that we are fortunate to have had a speech on this issue from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He expressed his feelings with that great depth of humanity which we know him to have. Also I would like to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for raising this issue and for introducing into the Debate such an atmosphere of dignity and depth of feeling. I merely wish to refer to one case. I do not propose to give the name of the person concerned but I wish to make one point about it The uncertainty and doubt which arises when letters are posted and no answers are received is well known to most hon. Members; but, in addition to that, there is the uncertainty which follows from sending money remittances and not knowing for a long time whether they have got to the right people. That is an uncertainty which becomes almost too hard to bear

when, from time to time, one is told that the money has been refused.
Here is a case where there has been much difficulty in getting the money through. The Moscow Embassy has been helpful but on the last occasion when money was sent, after several months it was returned because the wife had not been located. This is what the man concerned says:
I am thus left without any knowledge of whether my wife has been moved from the place in which she was, whether she is still there but has changed her mind and so refused to accept the allowance any longer, or whether she is there and has been told by the N.K.V.D. that she has to lay off, and fears the consequence of non-compliance. Personally, I believe that the last is probably the case but this may be no more than personal conceit.
In such cases, is it the fact that there has been pressure from that sort of organisation which we in this House despise, or is it that there has been a genuine change of mind? It is that sort of uncertainty which is pulling at the heartstrings of my correspondent. I believe that a similar state of affairs exists in the other cases. I hope that this Debate will be of some assistance to the men concerned in that they will gain greater strength, knowing that they have the people of the country behind them. Also, I hope that it will be of some assistance in that it will increase the chance of His Majesty's Government being successful in getting the wives released from Russia. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be able to say that his right hon. Friend has changed his mind since a few days ago when he answered Questions on this subject in the House. Whether it was an aside or whether it was part of a considered statement, I do not know. On that occasion he said something to the effect that he had given up hope of getting these wives cut of Russia.
That is what I heard him say. It may have been that he had given up hope, but, anyway, the Under-Secretary is going to reply and can tell us the Foreign Secretary's views. If he has given up hope, we want to know what other steps can be taken. If he has not given up hope, there is one other way in which this Debate might help, and that is if those who have shown themselves consistently friendly to Moscow, if even one of those, will state clearly in this House that


he agrees with the opinions expressed by the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in deploring the attitude of the Soviet Government, and will join with us in demanding that the Soviet Government should change their minds.
One more point. There has been discussion already about reciprocal action in the nature of reprisals. I am sure that it is part of the British spirit that we never do "tit for tat" just for the sake of doing "tit for tat," but we have now waited a long time, and, in dealing with the Soviet Government on other things, it seems to be the case that firm action has a better chance of success than sitting back and taking kicks. If that is so, I have no doubt that the Foreign Office have considered whether it might be wise to refuse visas. They might have considered whether it would be wise to reduce the facilities so generously offered to Soviet Delegations of all kinds. They must have considered that, and I would like to hear the results of their considerations. What were their decisions about it, and what is in their minds? I am one of those who hesitate a long time before doing "tit for tat," but it may interest the House to know that we are very generous to Soviet delegations. If any hon. Members have looked up the London Telephone Directory to see how many telephone numbers the different offices of the U.S.S.R. have—and we know how difficult it is to get telephones—they will have found that they number up to 48, in different trade offices, but where is the trade?
Hon. Members may not know that, contrary to the normal practice, I believe, the Soviet Embassy in this country does not employ British subjects but mans that Embassy entirely from its own subjects. That is the position, and we should bear this in mind, since one reason given for the detention of these wives in Russia is that Russia is short of manpower. If that is the real reason, His Majesty's Government might consider that we should ask them to withdraw the 30 women who are in this country for various reasons, and that, in return, the Soviet Government might consider releasing these wives. His Majesty's Government must have a view on all these matters, and, although I do not want, in any carping or critical spirit, to put any more proposals forward, I hope

the Under-Secretary will give us and the men concerned some further hope that he will be successful. If he has to tell us that there is going to be no hope, it is incumbent upon the Government immediately to make the future happiness of these men possible, and immediately to take such legal steps so that the damage which has been done in the past by the action of the Soviet Government should be repaired, and that their chance of happiness in future may be restored to them.

3.24 p.m.

Miss Bacon: I hope the House will bear with me if, following a recent throat operation, my voice is not quite as strong as usual, but I do not want this Debate to pass by without adding my word to what has been said already, because I believe I am the only hon. Member of this House who has actually spoken to one of these Russian brides in Moscow. Exactly a year ago, I was in Russia, and I had not been there for more than a few days before I became acutely aware of this difficulty. In fact, I had been in Moscow only two or three days when I had a letter sent to me from one of the Russian wives. I do not want to weary the House by reading the whole of the letter but I want to make one or two extracts. It begins by saying:
As the wife of a British subject, I am, though Russian by birth, a British subject by marriage, and, as such, I am anxious to exercise what I understand is a privilege enjoyed by Englishmen in England, namely, the privilege of being received by a Member of Parliament.
The letter goes on to state the writer's case, and at the end, she asks me not to approach the authorities in this matter on her behalf alone:
I would ask you to do it in general terms on behalf of all wives in my position, of whom there are a number in Moscow, and without any mention of my name, as you will appreciate that the Soviet authorities may not regard favourably my approaching British Members of Parliament. I should add that the British Embassy has made efforts on our behalf.
Two or three days later, another of the wives came to see me, and she also told me the terrible position in which they were situated. She also had been to the British Embassy, and she spoke very highly of the help given to her there.

The question has been raised time and time again in this House, and again in


this Debate, why the Soviet authorities have taken up this attitude. Because of the fact that these women had approached me, I took the liberty of approaching, quite unofficially, a member of the Soviet Government on the matter, and I asked him why these wives were not allowed to go to Britain, and he gave me a number of reasons. The first reason was that, according to him, the British men had not chosen the best type of Soviet women for their wives, and he said the new idea was that only the best was fit for export. He said that the Soviet Government wished that only the best type of girl should go to this country. I told him that the women I had seen were a really good type of Russian citizen, as I am sure the others are, too. Next, he said that they had allowed a few wives to come, but they had been ill-treated by their husbands and had decided to go back to Russia. When I "pooh-poohed" that, he said that he himself had married a Russian woman when he wanted to take a wife, and that he believed that everybody else should do the same. I reminded him that that was a very strange argument to be put forward by a representative of a country so international in its outlook as Russia, and that I really did not know how far we could get in this matter.

The fact is that the Foreign Office and the British Embassy have done all they possibly can. The noble Lord, in his speech, appealed to someone like the Dean of Canterbury to do something about it. I am given to understand, though I do not know whether it is correct, that the Dean of Canterbury approached Generalissimo Stalin himself on this matter, but that no further progress was made, so that it is difficult to know what we can do in order to get these wives over here. We all know that the reasons given to me by the member of the Soviet Government were not the real reasons why the wives are being kept in Russia, and I want to say in conclusion, that I do not believe that we shall get any further in this matter until we can convince the Soviet authorities that there is nothing to be lost, but everything to be gained, by contact between the people of Russia and the people in the outside world.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I would not intervene in this Debate, but for one rather singular fact. Being a bachelor, I think that standing up for the wives of men who have married, either in this country or abroad, is a thing which a bachelor should try to do, because, not being married myself, I do see the great attachment there must be between a man and a woman who marry and live abroad.
The case I want to bring to the attention of this House is a very singular one, pertaining to a very important and very beloved past Member of this House—no less a person than George Lansbury. I was in Russia in 1933, and, when in Moscow, I met George Lansbury's daughter and the professor with whom she was living. At that time, I thought that they were married, and when I came back—I was a great friend of George Lansbury—I went to see him and told him that I had spoken to his daughter and her husband. He corrected me, and said, "No, not her husband; they are not married." I was a little surprised at that, because, after all, we all know what a very religious man George Lansbury was. Yet, there he was, boldly correcting me on the error which I had unwittingly made. Naturally, I would not have mentioned a thing like that to a person for whom I had such a terrific respect as I had for George Lansbury. He told me that they could not marry because, if they did, his daughter would not be allowed to come to England to visit him.
There is an entirely different outlook in Russia from what there is in other countries on the question of marriage. People who want to get married in Russia go to a sort of little office and just say that they are going to get married, and they get married. At the time I was there, much the same sort of process was adopted if a person wanted to be divorced. I think the system is rather different now. George Lansbury was a great friend of Russia, and nobody stood up more for that country than he did. Even when Russia was down and out and had no friends, George Lansbury remained her friend. And yet, even this great man had to submit to the position that his daughter could not marry the man with whom she had fallen in love because, if she did, she would not be


allowed to return to England to visit her father.
I am not going to say anything to disturb the relations which exist between this country and Russia. I have heard it said by hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, I have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself say, that he had given up hope. But that does not mean that he has given up trying. I believe that he is still trying to straighten out this difficulty. I appeal to Russia from these benches to allow these wives to come to this country. It is a small matter to a country of nearly 200 million people to lose 15 persons because they are short of workers, as is asserted, but it is a great matter to the husbands of these women and to this country that these men should have their married state destroyed by a version of marriage that is alien to us. I appeal to Russia to give way on this small point. If they do, they will find that millions of people in this country will again become friends of Russia, and will be only too willing to pardon their sins.

3.33 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I think it is most unfortunate that neither of the two Communist hon. Members are here this afternoon, because, surely, as Communist Members of this House, the one thing they want to do is to improve the relations between this country and Russia. I should have thought it a most suitable occasion for one of them to be here to see what he could do to assist in solving the problem which confronts the Government.
I am not quite clear whether the number of women concerned is 15 or 30. My information is that 30 were originally married, that 15 have come over to this country, and that 15 still remain in Russia. As ray noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, these marriages were contracted with the permission of the Soviet authorities. Having given their permission, why do they now go back on it, and not allow these wives to come to this country? Has that ever been explained? I would be very grateful if the Minister would give me some explanation on that point. The 15 wives still in Russia have five children, and, as one hon. Member has already said, we do not know how they are being cared for. We

know that the Embassy is taking a considerable interest in the matter, but do they know the whereabouts of all the 15 wives and how the children are getting on? I should also like some information from the Minister on that point. I understand that one of the officers already referred to, has not heard from his wife for 18 months. Is the correspondence being destroyed, or deliberately held up? Even if these women cannot come over to this country, surely, they can be allowed to correspond freely with their husbands, even if the mail is sent through the diplomatic bag to Moscow, and then distributed personally.
How many of the wives are employed in the British Embassy? Could more such employment be given to others, who, I understand, are having a difficult time in sustaining themselves and their children? The Soviet authorities have said that these wives were not suitable women to go abroad. If that is so, why on earth did they allow the marriages to take place? They knew the girls concerned before they were married, and if that is really their objection, they should have said, on some pretext or another, "No, we are not going to allow these marriages." I am told that, at the present time, there are over 130 Soviet officials in this country who are here in connection with trade delegations, and that many of them have their wives and children with them. I also understand that special schools are run—and quite rightly—for their education.
I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that it is about time we really stood up and said what we thought in this matter. It has been too noticeable in the past that, in such matters, we have not adopted a strong enough policy. I say that even though I have a great respect for the Foreign Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. Have we, so far, used the radio to any extent in explaining our point of view to Russia and the world? If not, I suggest that we do so right away, because my experience of dealing with such countries is that when one stands up to them and deals with them by their own methods, one makes progress, whereas, if one sits back and allows oneself to be dictated to, no progress at all is made.
I implore the Minister, to take up the matter with our Ambassador, and, instead


of writing polite diplomatic letters to adopt a forceful attitude, and to insist as a right on the provisions of the international law. Surely, if the Russians want friendly international relations, they will meet us on the point. I refuse to give up hope that these women will be allowed to come to this country.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to address myself mainly to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I am sure he will not mind my saying that I thought he displayed admirable restraint. I dare say he did not find it easy to do that, and I dare say that I shall not; but I propose to do so. There is a danger of this Debate developing into a general anti-Soviet tirade. I rather agree with what has been said in this House and elsewhere that we should sometimes speak up and say what we mean, even if we do not achieve our object. But when one sets out to achieve an object, it is better to try to achieve it, and I have some anxiety as to whether this Debate will not do more harm than good.
I would say, first, that I would be very happy indeed if these 15 ladies were allowed to come to England, but I want to deal with the matter generally and in its proper proportion. The theoretical position, as I understand the procedure, is that we are discussing on the Adjournment something which is the duty of the Foreign Office. I suppose it is the duty of the Foreign Office—it is certainly the right of the Foreign Office—to use every possible persuasion, in the manner which they think is best calculated to achieve the object, with any foreign Government. As far as I know, they have been doing it; I have not the least tittle of evidence to show that they have not. That is really all that this Debate should strictly be about; but necessarily the matter has ranged a little wider, and so I want to deal with it as I understand it.
Let me say, first, that it is not really light to think of 15, or even 30, Soviet wives. The problem of mixed marriages, which has been a problem for a century or more, has got to be faced. The problem of Soviet citizens marrying British wives is one which, to my knowledge, has been going on for 25 years, and it is certainly 20 years since I was first asked to intervene in such a case. I will not give

the name of the people concerned, but I persuaded the Soviet authorities to let a young woman come to this country, and the only people who bitterly regretted the act within a year were the young lady and her husband. Some people say that it is a question of international right. The Under-Secretary has, no doubt, been into all this, but, as I understand my law, it is not a matter of law at all. These ladies are Soviet citizens, and the Soviet Government can exercise jurisdiction over them. They are also British citizens, and our Government could exercise jurisdiction over them if they were here. But so long as they are in the jurisdiction of the Soviet Government, the Soviet Government can withhold their permission. I do not believe it is the slightest good discussing this matter on legal grounds. We should discuss it on humanitarian grounds—on grounds of humanity, good sense and what can fairly be done.
It is said, perfectly truly, that the Soviet authorities raised no objection to these marriages. Of course, there would have been a frightful outcry if they had. Why should they, if British subjects in the Soviet Union seek to marry Soviet citizens? I do not think any permission was required by Soviet law, and certainly not by British law, unless the girl was under a certain age. Therefore, these marriages were contracted; but everybody concerned must have known perfectly well that it is the practice in the Soviet Union not to allow the permanent export of its citizens, unless they choose in a particular case to do so. In some cases, at any rate, the British subjects concerned knew that they were in danger of being sent back to England at once by the British Embassy in Moscow if they married Soviet girls. They all married—the 30 people involved, and the 15 people directly involved—and they took the risk with their eyes open. I dare say I would have done the same, and then fought as hard as I could to get my wife over here.
I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord say that the total number involved was as small as 30. I thought the number was larger. But be that as it may, I am right in saying that in every case in which a British subject working or fighting in the Soviet Union married a Soviet girl during the period of hostilities, the Soviet Government waived their natural ordinary objections and allowed the export of the wives, if I may so put it. The cases with


which we are now dealing concern entirely people who married after hostilities ceased, and the Soviet Union have not so far chosen to give way. It is a matter for them. I would very much like to see them give way, but they have not done so, and that is that. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that no Government had ever behaved in a similar way before——

Earl Winterton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to me, perhaps I may interrupt him. My information is that there is no discrepancy between these cases and the cases of those who have been allowed to leave. I have been consulting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) and I understand that the officer previously mentioned married in 1942. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. The distinction is that the Soviet Government chose to allow 15 wives to go away, and for reasons of their own they did not choose to allow others to go. There is no official distinction.

Mr. Pritt: There may be no official distinction, but my information is that the wives concerned in the marriages which were contracted during hostilities, were all allowed to come away. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that no other country had ever behaved in such a way. I have said that mixed marriages are a difficult problem. I myself, in the course of the last five years, have dealt, with far more than 15 cases, on behalf of constituents of mine alone, in which our humanitarian Home Secretary was deliberately keeping wives and children from their husbands because it was part of his settled policy that where Frenchmen or any other refugees in this country married English citizens, and of course did not thereby acquire British nationality at the end of the war, they had to go back.

Earl Winterton: But, surely, this is a completely different point. I do not think I shall be giving away an official secret when I say that I myself protested in the case of the refugees. But they were not British subjects. I said that as far as I know—and I would be very interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject—there was no

case in which a British subject had been refused permission by a friendly country to bring his wife to this country.

Mr. Pritt: I took the noble Lord to be dealing with something much wider.

Earl Winterton: Oh, no.

Mr. Pritt: I am not interested on such a point as this, in whether a man is a British subject or not. I am trying to get this unhappy matter into proportion by showing that, in truth and in fact, the British Government, which I support, have in fact treated far more than 15 people with at least equal severity. [An HON. MEMBERS
: "How?"] By allowing men and women—and really, a woman is a woman and a man is a man whatever the colour of their passports—of, say, French nationality, who have been here during the war as long as they were useful making munitions, to marry and have children, who are British subjects like the noble Lord and myself, by the accident of birth, and then turning the husbands out at the end of the war and separating them from their wives and children.

Mr. Marples: Mr. Marples (Wallasey) rose——

Mr. Pritt: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Member, I have made no charge against him. I was asked for an explanation, and I gave one. I do not wish to be recorded in HANSARD as having spoken for 30 minutes when, in fact, I spoke only for 15 minutes and other hon. Members interrupted for 15 minutes. The noble Lord says that he knows of no case where a British subject has been so treated. What about the case of the Australians and the Indonesians? A number of Australians, fighting for their country and for ours, in and around the Southern seas, returned to Australia with their Indonesian wives. What did the Australian Government do? They sent the wives back. The men said, "Let us go with them." "Oh, no," said the Australian Government, "you are Australian subjects. You must stop here." I only give these illustrations to remind hon. Members——

Mr. McGovern: If it is recorded in HANSARD, it is the truth.

Mr. Pritt: So long as I have the venomous hatred of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) I am satisfied


that I am on the right path. We are complaining, quite rightly, that we would like to see the 15 Soviet girls come and join their husbands in this country. But there are many more than 15 Soviet citizens in the British zone in Germany, whom the Soviet Government would like to go back. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Do they want to go back?"] Some of them want to go back, and some of them ought to go back just because they do not want to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. We in this country—[Interruption.]— Well, children, cannot you keep your mouths shut? We in this country have demanded that a few traitors we had lying around in Germany should be brought back to this country. Why should not the Soviet Union have their few traitors back? Very largely, the Soviet citizens in the British zone who are wanted to go back are very anxious to go back themselves.
It is one of the necessary tragedies of a discussion like this that it is important——

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is it in Order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to traitors, with the inference that there is some implication of these ladies?

Mr. Pritt: If any hon. Gentleman thinks that when I was referring to a few British traitors in Germany and a few traitors in the Soviet zone of Germany, I was referring to the young women in Soviet Russia, for whom I have expressed sympathy already, should he not see a doctor? One of the inevitable tragedies of a discussion like this is that feelings are aroused amongst various Members of the House, almost all of whom are entirely ignorant of the Soviet Union. [Interruption.] I am not going to be goaded into saying anything hostile or provocative. I am going to follow—I think I shall succeed in following whatever happens—the noble Lord's example and thus put the matter calmly. I am glad to say there is not very much more that I need discuss.

Mr. Follick: The hon. and learned Member is not discussing anything.

Mr. Pritt: I would say one or two words about the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) who is interrupting a little less than the others, but quite a lot. With regard to the daughter of the late Mr. George Lansbury, her reason for not

marrying the professor as he is sometimes called——

Mr. Follick: He was a professor.

Mr. Pritt: —sometimes called a professor because he was one—I wish the hon. Member would keep quiet; cannot he go and get married or something—the professor, as he was sometimes called because he was a professor, and Miss Lansbury, the reason she did not marry him then—she did later—was indeed because she wanted to come to England freely; and, if she had married, obstacles to her coming to England would not have been raised by the Soviet authorities but would have been raised by the British authorities.

Mr. Follick: It is perfectly untrue. What George Lansbury told me was bold and true.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is there not something rather disgusting in the discussion of this lady's private affairs? What has it got to do with this Debate? These are most wounding charges being made against her.

Mr. Speaker: On the Adjournment I cannot stop these things. They may be very unpleasant, but they have been raised, and so I cannot stop them.

Mr. Pritt: I did not raise this question. All I was saying is that the reason the lady wanted to retain her British nationality was in order not to be prevented from coming to England, not because of obstacles placed by the Soviet authorities but because of obstacles which would have been placed by the British authorities. Quite frankly, to the hon. Member who is so free in calling me a liar, which convinces me I am telling the truth, I would say that there is no inconsistency. What Mr. Lansbury said to him was that she was keeping her British nationality in order that she should be able to come here; but he did not say what Government would stop her.
Hon. Members have said that in Russia they do not take the same attitude to marriage which we take. Their attitude to marriage has varied a good deal. So has ours. But while theirs has been getting better and better, ours has been-getting worse and worse. At one time the number of their divorces was about 10 times as bad as ours; now, ours, is about


10 times as bad as theirs. Men and women in both countries love one another and get married. We are pretty good in this country in keeping the marriage tie, and we are pretty good in this country in looking after our children. So they are in the Soviet Union, and I do not know why the matter was brought up at all.
The only other thing I want to say, because I do not want to get into too much controversy, is that a good deal has been said about the fear and anxiety these ladies may have for their own safety in the Soviet Union. I have been in the Soviet Union. People have come up to me publicly and abused the Soviet Union in English or German, both languages understood by the inevitable hordes of the N.K.V.D. of which hon. Members talk, for hours and hours, and nothing has happened to them. People are really worrying unnecessarily; and when they complain of the difficulties of correspondence and the difficulties of remittances getting through, all I can say is that that is, unfortunately, a very usual feature. I do not know whether it is due to the British Post Office, or to the Soviet Post Office, or to the inefficiency of some country in between us and the Soviet Union, but it is in fact notorious that the percentage of casualties in all types of correspondence between here and the Soviet Union is very high indeed. Somebody complained to me the other day that a relative of his—perhaps, I had better not give the name, it was a prominent Englishwoman married to a prominent Soviet citizen who was married, I think, some 35 or 40 years ago—had not communicated with him. He said he had had no news of her, and wondered if she had been done away with in the usual mysterious fashion. I was able to reassure him that I myself met the lady and talked to her in Moscow.
The Foreign Office have no power to do anything but persuade the Soviet Union of this matter of these wives. I hope that they will succeed in their persuasion. I hope the wives will come here. For myself, I feel almost certain that this Debate will have hindered their case rather than helped it, but I wish the Foreign Office all success in their efforts.

Major Tufton Beamish: The hon. and learned Gentleman made two

very grave charges indeed which I am sure he would like to substantiate if asked a question about them. He made a charge, first, that there are traitors—Soviet citizens who are traitors—being sheltered in the British zone and that the British Government are refusing to hand them back. He also said that there are Soviet citizens who wish to return to their own country who are not allowed to do so by the British Government. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the name of one single Soviet citizen coming within that category, and to give the name of the camp he or she is in now, or else to withdraw.

Mr. Pritt: That, I think, does come singularly oddly from an individual who poured out the filthiest abuse on the Soviet Union last night or the night before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—Is it every little rat in this House who is making my speech for me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. and learned Member should call hon. Members rats.

Mr. Pritt: I will amend my question. Is everybody trying to make my speech for me? The charge, as I say, comes singularly ill from an individual who is notoriously——

Mr. Logan: Is it true?

Mr. Pritt: The charge comes singularly ill from that particular individual. All I can say about it is that I have not such names with me. I am assured on the highest possible authority that there is a large number of cases, and I cannot help thinking that it would be useful if the Under-Secretary, who is possibly informed on the matter, would tell us about them.

Mr. Logan: The hon. and learned Member has no right to make such charges.

4.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am sorry that the tone and usefulness of the Debate should have been ruined by this last speech. The hon. and learned Member said he wanted the 15 wives to come to England, and he hoped that this Debate would do more good than harm to their cause. But that cannot be reconciled either with the tone or with the substance of his speech. I do not propose to follow


all the points he made. Some of them were familiar questions which have been answered time and time again, with full evidence and full substantiation by the Government. For example, he raised the question of Soviet citizens being prevented from returning to Soviet Russia from the British zone of Germany. There is no substance whatever in that charge. On the contrary, we are under an obligation to return people of certain categories who are Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union; and, repugnant though it is to our whole conception of these things, we do honour such obligations to the Soviet Union. If the hon. and learned Member has any specific evidence at all, or any specific case, I will look into it immediately. But these charges have been made, and unless he can substantiate them he has no right to bring them forward in this fashion.
Before that speech I think I may say, without presumption, that both sides of the House appreciated the moderate and responsible speeches that were made on this occasion, and particularly the deeply felt but very responsible and helpful speech of the noble Lord. I would like, too, to join with previous speakers in expressing sincere sympathy with the husbands of the wives, who find themselves in this unhappy plight. There is the tragedy of enforced separation; there is all the agonised uncertainty; there are aggravations such as the tax on childlessness, which must be hard to bear; and, over all, there is the widespread publicity and high level diplomatic activity over what any normal person regards as his purely private and personal affair. In view of all the stress and provocation, I think the House will agree that the conduct of the husbands has been admirable in every way.
I was particularly glad that speeches were made on this subject from both sides of the House. Frankly, when I saw the notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment signed by 12 Conservative Members of known downright views, I was afraid that it might give the impression that all concern at the Soviet Government's attitude was the monopoly of one particular section of the British people. That is not so. Concern is shared by all parties, and by the vast majority of ordinary men and women in the country. The truth is, the Russian attitude on this

problem does violate all the democratic ideas and convictions of the British people.
I now wish to answer one or two of the specific points put to me in the Debate. Reference was made to the Dean of Canterbury. In the past, I have on many occasions disagreed strongly with the Dean of Canterbury, but it is only fair to him to tell the House that on this occasion he did make an appeal to Stalin on this point, and we were very grateful to him for his intervention. Then I was asked whether we could not use international machinery in some way in this matter. The answer is that no international machinery exists to which, we could appeal. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith was right on several of his legal points; it is a fact that in Soviet law these wives are Soviet citizens, and the relations between a sovereign country and its nationals cannot be brought before any existing international organisation. However, we are considering working into the Bill of Rights, which is to be considered by the Human Rights Commission, possibly some Clause relating to the rights of individuals to leave their countries; but I do not think that will have any bearing on the present issue. Apart from that, I am afraid there is no help to be sought from international institutions. I was also asked about what might be termed the policy of reprisals; that is to say, as stated by the noble Lord, that we should refuse visas to the wives of Soviet representatives visiting this country.

Earl Winterton: I want to be quite plain on this. I did not put it quite as strongly as that, although other hon. Members did. I would not presume to put it like that. I said that we should indicate to the Russian Government that it was disagreeable, or embarrassing—which was my actual phrase—to give visas to persons who were not actually members of the Embassy. I thought that might, to use a vulgarism, do the trick.

Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate the point. I had forgotten the precise standpoint of the noble Lord, which was slightly warmed up by subsequent speakers. We have considered matters of this kind, of course, in the Foreign Office, but I am myself doubtful whether there is anything helpful which we could work out along these lines. The essence of reciprocity is that it should be exact, and the noble Lord will appreciate that there is by no


means an exact parallel between the refusal of an exit visa for the Soviet wives of British citizens and the refusal of a visa for the wives of Soviet representatives visiting this country. It is not an exact parallel, and, therefore, much of the case of reciprocity goes. Furthermore, I think it rather undermines our whole attitude to this problem. After all our whole point, surely, is that the lives and liberties of individuals should not suddenly be disrupted in this way by State policy, and we should be very careful not, by our actions, merely to increase the area of injustice and difficulty. Therefore, I am rather doubtful whether anything could usefully be done along the lines suggested by hon. Members.

Mr. McGovern: I can see the difficulties involved, but could not the Under-Secretary consider prohibiting any British subjects in this country who are politically interested in the Russian ideology from going to Russia?

Mr. Mayhew: Again, I think that is a very doubtful suggestion indeed. Without thinking about it, I should not like to give a decision, but it strikes me as very unusual, and it would need very careful consideration.

Mr. Marples: Stop them coming back when they get there.

Mr. Mayhew: The third main point about which I was asked by the noble Lord was whether we would issue a White Paper summarising the diplomatic exchanges, which have gone on in relation to this problem, so as to show the reasons for the Soviet attitude. The first thing I have to say about that is that I am afraid that publication of these documents would not reveal any statement of the Soviet reasons. Reference was made, as I will show later, to the conduct of two of the Soviet wives who did reach this country, but there is nothing in the correspondence to indicate the reasons for the Soviet's refusal, and there is nothing official I can say about it. We have had evidence from the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon)—and here let me say how glad we were to see her back in good form again—but nothing official has been stated about the Soviet reasons. Therefore, I do not think it would help to publish all this correspondence.
Perhaps for the record, and because it would interest hon. Members, I could give

a fairly full account of the series of negotiations, partly to show that the British Government have made the utmost efforts to solve this problem along diplomatic lines. I should like to tell the House of the continuous negotiations since the war. On 25th May, 1945, our Embassy in Moscow wrote to Mr. Vyshinski urging the Soviet authorities to consider releasing the Soviet wives from Soviet citizenship, and also to consider applications of six of the wives for foreign passports with exit visas. On 12th June, our Ambassador spoke personally to Mr. Molotov, and reminded him that during the war we had made many appeals on this subject and had received no satisfactory answer. Then, at the end of the Potsdam Conference, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Marshal Stalin himself, and was told that the necessary instructions had already been issued that the Soviet wives should be allowed to leave the Soviet Union immediately.
Shortly afterwards, our Ambassador was led to believe that the matter had, in fact, been satisfactorily concluded, when, after an interview with Mr. Vyshinski, he was told that work was in hand on the lists of Soviet born wives which we had sent to the Soviet authorities. Two days later, to ensure that no slip should be made in the nominal roll, our Ambassador sent to Mr. Vyshinski a fresh and complete list of cases. On 1st September, the first apparently firm decision was reached by the Soviet authorities when Mr. Vyshinski informed our Ambassador that it had been decided to allow eight of the wives to leave the Soviet Union at once on Soviet foreign documents—that is to say, to receive exit permits but not to relinquish their Soviet nationality—and promised to send a further letter about the exit from the Soviet Union of the other women. This division of the wives into two categories was made because some of the wives had applied for exit permits on Soviet foreign documents, while others had applied for release from Soviet citizenship, which can only be obtained by decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. On 4th October, we again approached Mr. Vyshinski who explained that the outstanding cases were still being examined.
On 26th November, 1945, our Ambassador wrote another letter to the People's-Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. In


January he spoke once more personally to Mr. Molotov. On 23rd October the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs wrote to our Ambassador authorising three more of the wives to leave the Soviet Union, but mentioning that Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Liddell, two other Soviet born wives, had met with difficulties with their husbands on reaching the United Kingdom. Further correspondence was exchanged during January, 1946, but in April our Embassy reported to London that no progress had been made, but that we had done what we could with Mr. Vyshinski to dispel the allegedly bad impression "created in Soviet public opinion" by the alleged difficulties of Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Liddell.
On 30th May our Ambassador handed to Mr. Vyshinski a revised list of 15 outstanding cases, and urged that early action should be taken. In spite of this, on being approached personally by our Minister on 23rd August, Mr. Dekanozov of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs could give no indication that any immediate or general settlement could be expected. Just after Christmas, 1946, our Ambassador spoke again personally to Mr. Molotov, who, accepting the list of outstanding cases, promised to see what he could do. On 10th January, 1947, Field-Marshal Montgomery spoke personally to Marshal Stalin, but we know of no action being taken. On 15th March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote personally to Mr. Molotov. On 25th March, in an interview with Mr. Stalin, he informed him that the Prime Minister had specially asked him to raise the question again on a personal basis. Mr. Stalin replied that he had twice been hardly dealt with by the Supreme Soviet for raising this subject, and that he did not think that anything could be done.
Since then the Minister of State has written to Mr. Kuznetsov, the leader of the Soviet delegation which recently visited this country, and our Ambassador has written again to Mr. Vyshinski—as recently as 18th July—but all to very little effect. The Soviet authorities have remained completely un-co-operative, and despite this formidable list of approaches by His Majesty's Government, have persisted in refusing to grant this very small concession. We had the feeling that throughout, from beginning to end, we were knocking at a very firmly closed

door. For the future, the position is that we have still not heard from Mr. Vyshinski in reply to the letter we sent on 18th July.
I was asked about the statement of my right hon. Friend that there was no hope. If I understood him aright, I think he was saying that there is absolutely no hope in rashly trying to prophesy or foretell the future. At present, there is no evidence whatever of any change in the Russian attitude, and it would be merely raising false hopes to give any indication that there was such a change in attitude, or that there was likely to be such a change in attitude. It is, I think, my duty to make that quite plain. When we receive Mr. Vyshinski's reply, we shall have to consider whether there is anything further we can usefully do. But the position is thoroughly unpromising, and it would not be improved by any particular action which we could take at the moment. We are always open to suggestions, and I only wish that I could suggest to the House some new method we could try to deal with this problem.

Earl Winterton: As I think the Under-Secretary is about to conclude his speech, may I say how grateful we are to him for what he has said, and that I agree that none of the suggestions I have made can be pursued? I hope, therefore, that the Debate itself will have done some good.

Mr. Mayhew: I am glad that the noble Lord appreciates the position so well. I think our record shows that we have done our utmost in the past, and that if we are not coming forward now and suggesting new measures, the House will not think it is because of lack of sympathy or indifference on our part.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Under-Secretary has referred to the recent proceedings in connection with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I believe I am right in saying that the United Kingdom Government have submitted a draft text of a Bill which does not contain any reference to the fundamental right of a man and wife to live in the same country, or for a wife to join her husband if they are separated. Will my hon. Friend consider inserting a Clause to that effect in the United Kingdom draft which is now being considered by the Commission on Human Rights?

Mr. Mayhew: I think I have indicated that we are trying to arrange something of the kind. Our Bill of Rights was perhaps in too general terms to cover this particular point, but we will consider whether or not we can do anything of the kind, either in connection with this particular draft, or of some other. I should like to echo what other speakers have said and say that I am absolutely certain the Russians, if they could even at this stage change their minds on this point—and there would be no embarrassing questions because they have now passed a law forbidding marriages with foreigners—would be doing good to Anglo-Russian relations. It is the small things which sometimes tell in these matters. It seems a very small concession to make to bestow this great blessing, particularly when so few people are involved.

Orders of the Day — WORKS OF ART (IMPORT AND EXPORT)

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: I wish to bring to the notice of the House the question of the circulation, or, rather, non-circulation of works of art, partly in order to have clarified what is the real position, and partly in order to suggest that if the position is as anomalous as I understand it to be, it might be quickly revised. As I understand it, there is no import tax on paintings or drawings, but there is a tax on sculpture, engravings, etchings, etc., unless they are destined for a museum or certified by the Director of the Tate Gallery to be indeed works of art. The first objection which presents itself is that the Director of the Tate Gallery should be invested with the obligations of an arbitrary censorship. After all, if the position of Director happened to be held by someone like Sir William Reid Dick, it is conceivable that he might not accept the view that a sculpture by, say, Mr. Henry Moore, was in fact a work of art; and conversely Mr. Henry Moore, if he were the Director of the Tate Gallery, might find it very difficult indeed to persuade himself that the products of the diligence of Sir William Reid Dick had anything remotely to do with art. That is the difficulty in which we always find ourselves. I know quite well what is a work of art, and my hon. Friend knows quite well what is a work of art, but he

does not know that I know; nor do I know that he knows. That is the eternal dilemma of subjective censorship.
I do not wish to put any further particular emphasis on this point, but to ask now what is the procedure involved. If you spend a year or two abroad hacking away at a five- or six-ton piece of granite, trying to convert it into a piece of sculpture, what you have to do, I understand, is this. First, you have to crate it and send it to England and fill up Entry Form 107 in duplicate. Then you send another form, also in duplicate, to the Director of the Tate Gallery providing information under a further seven heads. You then take two photographs of what you hope to have been a work of art and despatch them to the Director. Then you leave a deposit on security for it for an unspecified sum with somebody, although I am not quite sure and cannot find out exactly whom. Finally, you cart your problematical work of art to the premises of Messrs. James Bourlet of 17, Nassau Street, Mortimer Street, London, W.I, and there it remains and you wait. If, in due course, the Director of the Tate Gallery decides that you have in fact committed a work of art, well and good. If, on the other hand, he decides that what you have deposited at the premises of Messrs. James Bourlet, of Nassau Street, is still only five or six tons of granite, then, presumably, you must just cart it away again—no doubt calling at Carey Street on the way.
Luckily, none of this ever happens because the Treasury have invented an ingenious device for circumventing these difficulties. They just do not let anything in at all. When I learned this orginally, I found it very hard to believe, and I asked my hon. Friend at Question time whether in fact there was a virtual embargo on works of art. He was unable, of course, to deny it, but he said that we were allowed to bring works of art in on condition that they were sent out again almost immediately. As a matter of fact there was one other loophole which he did not mention: I believe that one can bring works of art in provided that they are certified to be household effects, but then there arises immediately the question of what is a household effect. Another censor is involved, and this time I understand it to be a customs officer. The wife of a friend of mine, who is an artist and


had painted some pictures in France, attempted to bring them back home. She informed the customs officer that they were indeed household effects and that her intention was to hang them in her bedroom. The customs officer looked at them and, being obviously of the opinion that nobody could possibly want to hang them in his or her bedroom, he decided that they were not household effects and the lady was not allowed to bring them in.
I am sure that my hon Friend will admit that all this is fairly average nonsense, and I believe it to be the case that this situation is not the result of policy at all but of a kind of hangover of old regulations that have been overlooked. The reason given by my hon. Friend in his reply to my Question was, in a phrase, "balance of payments reasons." In these days those are, indeed, very formidable reasons, but we must have some sense of proportion and the dollar saving in this field is quite negligible; for the simple reason that, although the United States of America are very good at producing a number of things, they are not very good at producing works of art. The result is that whereas our total gross expenditure on imported works of art in 1939 was £626,000, the dollar expenditure was only £119,000, which, as I said, is negligible. Is it really worth saving? Is in worth all this dislocation and anomaly which nobody would defend for its own sake?
After all, if we accept the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) more than six times this sum, this paltry £119,000, is spent by us annually on the importation of American magazines. That continues and, unfortunately also, on the same day that I raised this question, my hon. Friend had had, in answer to a previous Question, to admit that import licences had actually been granted for certain American motor cars. The worst parallel has, I am glad to say, been changed, but until the last few days we had been acquiescent in the loss of £17 million or £18 million worth of dollars on imported American films.
I mention that only because whenever an attempt to justfy it has been made, it has always been on the theory that if we allowed the British film industry its head in a free trade market, somehow or other it would be able to redress the adverse balance

of trade by selling British films in America. Nobody who knows anything about the film industry can find the slightest tittle of real evidence for believing that in any foreseeable period of time £18 million worth of dollars net can be brought back into this country from the sale of British films in the States. I mention this because it provides an important contrast. There the balance of trade is violently against us whereas here, in the art world, it was very much in our favour. London was for many decades the prime market of the world for works of art, but it is gradually and dangerously ceasing to be so. What we are doing, if we are not very careful, is to argue that free trade should be allowed in films, where the balance of trade was against us, in the chimerical hope that one day in the far future the position might change. At the same time as that argument was being advanced we were refusing free trade in a field where the balance of trade was in our favour and where, as a result, we were inexorably losing our advantage.
For it happens to be true that before the war free trade in works of art brought us in dollars. I quoted £119,000 as the 1939 figure for imported works of art from America just now, but I said at the time that that was gross. My hon. Friend may have the overall figures although I have had some difficulty in obtaining them, and I think he will be able to tell the House that every year the balance of trade was in our favour in terms of dollars. That is a very important consideration which I think we can emphasise. As I say, I have had difficulty in obtaining the overall figures—a difficulty which does not operate in my hon. Friend's case—but I have managed to find certain individual figures as examples.
Although, for obvious reasons, I cannot mention the firms involved, one leading firm in 1937 bought £100 worth of stuff in America and sold £62,500 worth to America. In 1946 that £62,500 had been reduced to £9,400, which is a very big drop. Another firm which imported nothing from America exported in 1938 £144,000 worth to America. In 1947 that had dropped to £90,000. The drop is significant because, while my hon. Friend might argue—although I do not suppose for a moment that he will be


sufficiently disingenuous to do so—that, after all, these regulations do not impede the export trade because an import licence can be granted to anybody who is willing to re-export, I am sure that he will realise that we cannot maintain let alone build up a trade on that basis: you cannot possibly give an assurance beforehand to anybody that certain pictures will be sold within a specified time for dollars.
The second reason why it is important is that, although import licences have seldom been refused when applied for, they have seldom been granted. The technique is largely one of procrastination, with the result that applications are very seldom made. One firm, one of the biggest firms of art dealers in the world, has made only four such applications since 1942, and of those four applications three have been rejected. They tell me that, on a conservative estimate, the rejection of those three applications cost the Treasury 125,000 dollars. Mind you, the firm would have applied for more licences if the difficulties had not been so great. On the basis of their prewar trade they would have brought this country 500,000 dollars at prewar prices. Those prices have since doubled, so there may very well have been a million dollars lost as a result of these regulations.
Perhaps the most important consideration of all is that one cannot continue to export if the stock is perpetually running down. Unless one replenishes the stock one cannot maintain the export trade. London will be no longer the centre of the art trade unless we are very careful. I have laid particular emphasis upon the economic side of this matter. But even if we were losing a few dollars I still say that the position ought to be considered very carefully, because nothing could be more reactionary where works of art are concerned than to shut ourselves behind an iron curtain.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this situation for this reason and for three others that I have given, and which I will summarise. First, our preeminence in the world market is being jeopardised; second, this trade does not cost us dollars but wins us dollars; and third, even if that were not the case, the sum involved is so small and the principle involved is so great that an elementary sense of proportion must dictate other cuts and deprivations before these.

4.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) for the extremely reasonable fashion in which he has argued his case and particularly for what I took to be his implication that at least I was not insensitive on the matter of the exchange of works of art. In fact, I regret very much that there is such a small attendance of Members, although perhaps that can be forgiven on such a pleasant afternoon as this. I wish that this very important cultural subject could have attracted a greater attendance of Members. I notice the complete absence of the Liberal Party and of the Liberal National Party, and the almost complete absence of the Conservative Party. However, I am glad that culture in this country is, for the time being at any rate, in the safe keeping of the Labour Party, and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would point out that Scotland is represented.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Scotland has always had a very great reputation for culture and hon. Members who represent Scotland are keeping up that reputation today.
Let me tell the House the present position. It is true that there is a very complicated and intricate procedure for getting a work of art into this country, but it is circumvented by the Treasury simply declining to allow any imports, so the complicated procedure does not arise. We allow them to come in here for exhibition purposes, provided that an undertaking is given that none of the works will be sold in this country, all of them being re-exported either to the original source or to some other destination at the conclusion of the exhibition. We have had it urged upon us repeatedly by painters of repute that if we are to build up a British school of painting in this country, it is essential that our painters and particularly our younger and newer painters, should have an opportunity of seeing what is being produced currently abroad. I understand that there is especial interest to see what is going on in France. In present circumstances, for obvious reasons, it is not possible for those painters, particularly the younger ones, to go abroad as freely as they did in the


days before the war. On the other hand, I imagine it would be difficult to persuade foreign artists to hold exhibitions in this country unless they felt that, at the conclusion or during the course of the exhibition, they would be allowed to sell some of the paintings which they were exhibiting.
It has also been urged upon us that it would assist in building up a British school of painting if our painters could exhibit their works of art in other countries. Naturally, in this as in other matters, other countries are demanding a quid pro quo. If we are to exhibit our pictures from Chelsea in Montparnasse, or wherever these exhibitions are held, the people on the other side say, "That's all right, if we can come along to Bond Street." We have been approached by Dominion and Colonial Governments on this matter, but on balance of payment grounds we have been compelled to resist them, because of the non-discrimination clause in our Financial Agreement with the United States of America, which would make it impossible for us to have in this country exhibitions of paintings from the Dominions and Colonies unless we were prepared to offer equal rights to the United States. We have not been prepared hitherto to admit works of art from the United States precisely because of our dollar shortage and we have not allowed works of art to be included in the token import scheme.
Art dealers have approached us also, asking us to allow them to import works of art freely without any obligation to re-export them. They have not confined themselves to paintings but have included drawings, tapestry, sculptures curios, antiques, coins, and all kinds of other items. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that one has to draw the line somewhere. It is not easy to draw a line. Some hon. Members interested in art may be particularly attracted to pictorial art, and other hon. Members may be drawn to sculptured art, while others prefer furniture, and so on. It is necessary to look at these matters very carefully. I doubt very much whether any relaxation is possible but if it is possible to relax it will not be over a wide field. We shall have to define fairly carefully what is a work of art and what is not. Who is to undertake that task of definition,

whether the head of the Tate Gallery or a customs officer, I do not know. I can only say that I should not like to have to do it. I hope that the suggestion made in my hon. Friend's speech will not be taken too seriously.
I agree that on the financial side the figures are interesting. In prewar years our chief source of import of pictures and of other works of art was France, the United States coming second. The average import from France in the three prewar years, 1936–7–8 was valued at £656,000 per year. The corresponding average from the United States was £196,000. From Empire sources during the same three years it was £55,000 a year, mainly from Canada and Eire. It has been suggested to us in the light of those figures that we should not fear the non-discrimination obligation in regard to imports from the United States, because of the smallness of their prewar exports of pictures to this country compared with the imports from France and Empire countries.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: What kind of pictures were they? Were they works of art?

Mr. Belcher: They were pictures. I take it that they were works of art. We are dealing generally at this moment with works of art. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that no works of art are produced in the United States of America—I do not know that he is—I am not competent to argue about it. I should have thought it would have been possible for works of art to be produced in the United States of America as in almost every other country.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman must not consider that I think works of art are not produced there. I happen to know that many works of art are produced there. But I am surprised at the figure for imports, and I wondered whether there was any re-import.

Mr. Levy: Would my hon. Friend say if that figure includes the re-importation of works of art which have been sent out to the United States of America, for example, where an art dealer has a firm in New York to which he sends out works of art and then brings back those which are not sold? Are those included?

Mr. Belcher: I do not know. This is the total figure of imports into the country from the United States. If there has been an importation into the United States and the subsequent re-export to this country, the figures I have quoted would include that re-export. I can give the House the figures showing the imports of pictures from the United States in the years, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and the exports and re-exports of pictures from this country to the United States in the same years. They are interesting. In 1936 our imports were £117,000 and exports and re-exports £537,000. In 1937 imports were £227,000 and exports and re-exports £512,000. The 1938 figures are not so satisfactory from our point of view because the imports were £245,000 and the exports and re-exports £313,000, but I agree that if we are dealing with the matter purely on currency grounds the prewar figures appear to lend some substance to my hon. Friend's argument that permitting the resumption of this trade might very well be to our advantage in a dollar sense. As I told my hon. Friend recently, the matter has been discussed and is still being discussed between Departments but we have not yet agreed upon a plan which would be satisfactory to all the Government Departments concerned. The basis of any such scheme would be that if we were to allow imports freely, so far as currency is concerned, the scheme would depend for its continuation on whether or not we were able to show, if not a profit in dollars, at least something like equality in dollars.
I do not think it could be suggested at the present time that the free importation of works of art would mean a considerable dollar drain. On the figures we have had today, I do not think that that could be shown, but I would not like to suggest at the moment that we could easily have a scheme for the free importation of works of art. We would require to have safeguards. We should have to safeguard ourselves against people who might be buying works of art as a speculation. My hon. Friend would not want to make it possible for people to obtain works of art from the United States in this difficult currency time as a

speculation or insurance against inflation. I should regard such people as guilty of questionable transactions. It would be very different if the purpose were to build up a school of art here in this country or to make available to our people something of cultural value.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about modern works of art?

Mr. Belcher: Any works of art. If they are the work of current painters in the United States of America, they will be modern works of art, but they might exist in private or public museums in the United States, in which case they might be modern or ancient.

Mr. Bracken: Is it not the case that no duty is payable on works of art over 70 or 100 years old?

Mr. Belcher: One does not have to pay duty on any such works of art at the moment because we are not issuing any licences in such cases. The burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that we should be issuing licences. We have had no request for importation on behalf of public galleries. If we had, they would have to be treated in the same way as any other requests for importation. I can only say to my hon. Friend, as I told him at the beginning, that I am not insensitive to this subject. I realise that there are other considerations quite as important as the material consideration with which we are concerned most of our time. There are cultural and moral considerations. I regard cultural considerations as of prime importance. I will promise that while this question is under discussion between the various Departments concerned, I will personally give the greatest possible attention to it with the most sympathetic attitude that I can summon up, and although our present currency difficulties, about which we have been so preoccupied during the last three or four days, make it extremely difficult to come to a favourable decision on the matter, I can assure him that there is no lack of sympathy so far as I am concerned, and that I will not lightly allow a decision to be come to which will reject out of hand the possible free importation of works of art.

Orders of the Day — AIRPORTS (FIRE PRECAUTIONS)

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Bowden: From time to time we discuss aircraft crashes, inquiries into aircraft accidents, and generally the results of accidents to persons who are passengers in aircraft or who are engaged in flying, but this afternoon I intend to raise for a few minutes the question of the policy of the Ministry of Civil Aviation in dealing with the work of rescue and fire fighting. I do this knowing full well that it is a relatively new Ministry which has had just over two years in which to put its house in order and tackle very many problems, but the time has now come when we should have some assurance that this problem is being tackled. It is a matter of supreme importance to the flying public, although perhaps of little importance to the members of the public who do not fly. To the people who fly in aircraft it is of great importance to realise that should they be involved in an accident, there is every possible chance of their getting out alive.
I am raising this matter purely to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation information as 10 what has been done, and I do so in no critical sense whatever. I could not be critical about the work of the Ministry, as I have no knowledge of what it has done in this matter. We are fast approaching the period when we shall have still larger, and, I hope, better aircraft. We are rapidly approaching the era of the flying airliner which may carry a very great number of passengers. Therefore, the subject we are now discussing is of greater importance as this aspect of the work of civil aviation increases. We shall have not only more passengers but larger crews, and the work of rescuing them when aircraft liners are involved in accidents will become of increasing importance. These aircraft will carry greater fuel loads and, therefore, the risk of fire will be greater than it is with the smaller aircraft. I shudder to think what would be the effect of one of the proposed new airliners crashing with a full complement of passengers and crew and immediately bursting into flames. That is something we must face up to, objectionable as it may seem.
Experience has taught us that most aircraft crashes occur in or near aerodromes.

There is the occasional aircraft that crashes into the sea or hits the side of a mountain, but usually accidents occur when aircraft are taking off, through over-shooting the runway, or for some other reason when landing. Because of the fact that crashes occur, in the main, on or near aerodromes, it is important that on each large airport there should be stationed crews and equipment capable of dealing with any accident that may occur. As a result of Questions which I put in the House in January, regarding the Dakota aircraft that crashed at Croydon, the House was told that when the crash-tender arrived on the scene it was found to be incapable of dealing with the fire because it was not serviceable. One of the valves had frozen up owing to the weather at that time. I know the particular type of tender used, and I say, quite frankly, that it is possible that the valve may have been frozen up, but I say, equally strongly, that ought not to have happened.
It is wrong, again, to assume, as memers of the public often do who have not flown a great deal, that on every occasion when an aircraft accident occurs the passengers or crew are killed outright. Experience has taught us differently. While it is almost impossible to acquire definite information as to how many of the crew who might perhaps have subsequently been killed by fire were only dazed or unconscious when an aircraft crashed—it is impossible to ascertain the percentage—undoubtedly, during the war years in the R.A.F.—and it is not a nice thing to say, perhaps, from the point of view of those people who have relatives who were killed in aircraft accidents—many men were trapped in aircraft crashes and were burned to death by fire before they could be rescued.
One cannot ascertain how many people have been unconscious and how many have become injured and not actually killed outright, but there are figures available which clearly indicate that in the R.A.F., at least in 1945, out of 818 personnel who were either injured or killed in aircraft accidents, 144 were completely incinerated in the tire that followed. It is sometimes assumed that the fire is immediate, but that is not always so. Often some minutes elapse before an aircraft bursts into flames. In those cases where it bursts into flames immediately on crashing, it is very


difficult to effect rescue, but rescue can often be effected at that stage. In the important minutes before the escaping fuel touches the hot portions of the engine, rescue work can be done.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is I know, interested in this subject, what his Ministry are doing with regard to it: Are they tackling it from the centre as a centralised policy, or is each aerodrome manager permitted to work out some programme and plan of his own? My view is that the subject is so large that it needs centralised policy and ought not to be left to the Corporations and to the individual airport managers, but should be dealt with centrally by the Ministry of Civil Aviation through a special Department. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that something of that sort has been done.
On every airport, there should be trained crews standing by, manning the best possible equipment that can be obtained, to carry out this rescue work. The crews must be specialised because it is specialist work. They must know the types of aircraft with which they are likely to deal. They must know something of aircraft construction and know where the passenger carrying parts can be attacked by axe or other means to effect an entry to get out the passengers. It is specialised training not only in the knowledge of fire fighting and the various methods for fire fighting, but of aircraft construction as well. Many times during the war years I feel sure—in fact, I know—a fire was made more severe by a fuel pipe being cut by someone who was most anxious to get on with the work of rescue. Therefore, I would say that the Ministry of Civil Aviation, should at some future date, if it is not possible now, open up an establishment where fire fighters can be trained, and to which they can go from all parts of the country and from all aerodromes periodically, every six or 12 months, for a refresher course, because the technique of dealing with this particular type of accident and fire is ever changing. I go further and say that all members of the ground crews, flight mechanics, in fact everyone assisting on an airfield who is likely to be near at hand when an aircraft accident occurs, should be given an opportunity of attending a course at a fire school, with a view to

becoming at least partially efficient in the important work of rescue.
I have heard a rumour—and I hope that it is only a rumour—that the Ministry of Civil Aviation are considering handing over this work to the National Fire Service. Far be it for me to say anything derogatory about the work of the National Fire Service. It did excellent work during the war on airfields in conjunction with the R.A.F. fire crews, but it would be a complete mistake to hand this particular job over the N.F.S., as I know that at the end of the war years they had neither the equipment nor the trained personnel to do it. If they can acquire and are prepared to provide the equipment and to give the crews the specialised training necessary, then, perhaps, something might be done in the way of liaison with the Ministry of Civil Aviation fire service, but I hope that the whole of the work of fire fighting in the Ministry of Civil Aviation on British airports will not be left to the National Fire Service.
I want to say a word about equipment. The equipment of British aerodromes at the end of the war was largely the fire fighting equipment of the R.A.F. If it has never been said before, I should like to say now in the House that the fire personnel, the trained crews of the R.A.F. during the war years, did an excellent job of work. They were always undermanned, and they were dealing with equipment that was completely out of date, much of it was, at the time, a mock-up of the real thing, in that a vehicle could be obtained and made up into what was supposed to be a fire tender. That was the legacy which my hon. Friend took over in the way of fire fighting equipment. It was important, therefore, for him and his Department to tackle the job and see what could be done to bring up to date the equipment that was being used. I hope that they have done that. I might say a word about the type of equipment used for getting over rough ground outside the general circumference of the airfield and for quickly traversing fields, ditches and hedges. It is quite wrong to assume that the ordinary motor vehicle can do that. I can never understand why someone has not thought of using some of the many thousand tracked vehicles such as brengun carriers which are lying about in this


country, and converting them into fire-fighting tenders for use at civil aerodromes.
The policy which I have advocated of a centralised department dealing with this matter as a big job is expensive, and perhaps this is not the time to advocate anything which will be particularly expensive. However, we cannot afford to do without a completely efficient fire service. It is an expenditure which we shall have to face, and the Department, or section or level of the Department which decides that we cannot go ahead with this plan must take full responsibility if aircraft crashes occur and we are not able to deal with them efficiently. I am not for one moment advocating a fully-manned fire tender or fire section on every air strip and on every field where private aircraft fly where everything is carried out for sport and general amusement. That is not at all necessary. That type of aircraft is smaller. There is a certain amount of risk that it may burst into flames, but it can easily be dealt with on the spot by first-aid appliances. It is not necessary to go to the extent of manning-up that particular type of aerodrome and air strip, but it is essential that the larger ones should be so manned. The British accident record in civil aviation is extremely good. It compares favourably with any in the world. We have had a fairly good run without many bad crashes, but the time may come when our luck, and much of it is luck, runs out. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the House that the problem is being tackled as a major one and that the Ministry of Civil Aviation is to provide an efficient fire service.

5.3 p.m.

Captain Marsden: The matter which has been raised is most important, and one which I thoroughly appreciate. I have a little extra fear that we are not being adequately looked after in this respect. I speak as an ordinary passenger who occasionally flies. I suppose like many others, I never get up in the air without some qualms—not that we shall not land, for that is one thing which is certain, but about the condition in which we shall do so. That does rather worry me. I agree about fire-fighting services on the aerodromes, but what I have always in mind is crashing on some

mountain or in some far distant place where there are no fire-fighting services to help My thoughts immediately turn to escape from the aeroplane. Of all forms of death there is none more terrible to contemplate or to experience than being in a plane with the flames slowly advancing on one, as the hon. Member indicated, with no means of escape.
I have never been in a plane yet in which, in my opinion, it has been adequately or clearly pointed out, where the escape doors are or how they are operated. In the Navy, in my experience, we know a great deal about watertight doors which can easily be opened with one turn of a lever against a tremendous pressure of outside water. Modern planes could have doors with a couple of levers so that people inside could easily get out. In that case the plane would be on the ground, and there would be no outside pressure. This matter has been brought up previously. I remember an hon. Lady opposite raising the matter, and saying that she had just been in a plane and on looking round had not been able to imagine how she would get out. In considering fire-fighting appliances from without, I hope that the Minister of Civil Aviation will also consider as most important a method of escape from within.

5.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicester (Mr. Bowden) for providing this opportunity to discuss this subject. As a nation I think we are prepared to face danger and to take risks, but there is a universal horror of being burnt alive. Generally speaking, there is nothing we fear more than fire. Therefore, the public have the right to be assured of the effectiveness of the provisions made for them in circumstances where there is a real risk of fire. If air transport is to be the success which it is the duty of my Ministry to ensure, the travelling public must have confidence in the safety precautions taken in the case of accidents. During the war I had a certain amount of experience in fire fighting and fire fighting organisation. At the Ministry I have given special attention to this part of our work.
The fire fighting service is a difficult service to organise because it is not glamorous. It is standby service and


the less it is required, the happier everyone is. When, in fact, the various rescue services are never required, then air transport will be the most efficient service in the country; but where there is a risk there should be a standby service ready to cope with the emergency which no one wishes to happen. Fortunately, over long periods, emergencies do not happen. To get this standard of service and to maintain it at the pitch of its efficiency continuously is very difficult. Despite what some people say, most men like to be doing a job. They like to be on the go instead of waiting about for something to happen.
There are three sections of this problem. First, there is the possibility of an aircraft catching fire in flight; second, there is the fire following a crash on take-off or landing at an aerodrome; and third, there is the fire following a crash on a hillside away from an aerodrome. In the case of fires in aircraft in flight, there has been a considerable amount of research, in cooperation with the Ministry of Supply Technical Research Department and the industry. There has been provided in increasing numbers, though not yet in all aircraft, a fire check for engines during flight; also, provision is being made for the impact operation of extinguishers immediately an aircraft crashes. I think that the difficulty about escape hatches is somewhat exaggerated. The matter was mentioned on a previous occasion by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). She even made a joke of it because of her personal figure. In fact, on all aircraft the escape hatch is plainly marked. It is true that in some cases the means of escape is through a small aperture, and if one is of great bulk then there may be difficulty. This is an important matter and great attention is given to it.
In addition, there is the question of aerodrome organisation. Perhaps this is the section for which my Ministry has the greatest responsibility. As has been said, the Ministry came into existence two years ago. At that time, the equipment and the service on the vast majority of aerodromes was provided by the Royal Air Force. We did not accept responsibility for the provision of crash and fire-tender crews until some time later.
Therefore, immediately, one has to consider which is the most efficient organisation

that one can have, because it is not desirable that everybody should set up their own tin-pot organisation. We went into this very conscientiously and considered whether or not we could get a general service which would cover the Ministry of Civil Aviation, normal civilian fires, Air Ministry fires and R.A.F. fires, and whether it was possible or not for one or other of these organisations to take over the functions of that general service. We finally came down to the view that it was unwise to proceed on that basis, and that, in fact, the most efficient organisation could be provided by our own service within the Ministry itself. The reason for that was that, first of all, an aircraft fire, a crash, or the rescue of persons from aircraft present a very specialised job. Dealing with conflagrations in domestic and industrial hereditaments is a much different thing. It was therefore decided to build this service around our own Ministry, but to have two standby organisations, the N.F.S., who are notified every time there is a possibility of a crash, whenever this is known beforehand and, secondly, to reinforce the N.F.S., which is the first reserve, by people within the aerodrome organisation itself—an auxiliary service made up of various persons doing runway jobs or in the shops and who have some first-aid and fire fighting knowledge.
The organisation of that service is important, because the efficiency of the set-up will depend on the lay-out of the service. First, at the Ministry, we have the Chief Fire Officer, with a deputy and two or three technical officers, and they are the central pivot on which the service will operate. They will be responsible for general policy, supervision of training and the standard of efficiency in the individual units. Then, the service is broken down into four divisions, and Scotland, which is so well represented here, is one of these four divisions. There is a divisional officer in charge of each division under the Ministry, and, at each airport, the commandant or manager is the administrative person responsible, because we must have only one chief at an aerodrome. He has a fire officer or section leader, dependent upon the size and importance of the aerodrome, who is responsible to the airport manager for the general condition and organisation of the aerodrome itself, and then, of course, to


the area officer and the divisional officer for the general efficiency of the service.
The recruitment of the men for this service is from the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm, ex-members of the N.F.S., and other persons who make themselves available for it. The service will have proper rates of pay and conditions of service, and it will be a uniformed, disciplined service, a nation-wide service, in which there will be opportunity of promotion right throughout the country. I am glad to say that the Treasury, with whom we carried out our discussions about the provision of the money concerning the rates of pay and conditions of service have, in fact, given full authority for that aspect of the matter. It is equally true that we must have, and we have already established at Cardiff, a training school, at which the whole of the personnel in the service will, at one time or another, go for a refresher course.
That training school will be the basis upon which the service will be built up. There is not only the question of the fire-fighting and crash service. There is the medical side. Accidents happen, and medical and nursing attention is required. That is an expensive service to provide. One cannot have doctors and nurses standing by at every airport waiting for a crash which may not happen. But at the larger airports there will be, generally speaking, that medical and nursing service. At the smaller airports, we are having the assistance of St. John's Ambulance and British Red Cross.
Finally, there is the question of equipment. Some time ago, I made a speech in this House in which I stated that sufficient thought had not been given in the past in regard to the provision of aerodrome equipment for fire fighting, and the rest. That statement seems to have touched the industry itself, although I do not blame the industry, because, I do not think it was given the necessary encouragement. One cannot expect manufacturers to make certain equipment unless those who require it say exactly what they want. The industry has reacted magnificently, and we are now getting the active co-operation of the various manufacturers of fire-fighting equipment to meet the demands of the Ministry of Civil Aviation services. There is an inter-departmental committee upon which the Ministry of Civil Aviation,

the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry and the Home Office are represented. The Home Office are represented on that Committee because of the supervision they exercise over the local authority service when it is transferred back from the N.F.S.
We are seeing to it that we get the most up-to-date equipment that it is possible to obtain. It takes a certain amount of getting, because of the difficulties of manufacture. In the meantime, as has been said, we have taken over R.A.F. equipment and certain American equipment, and, in that respect, the disposals branch of the Ministry of Supply and of the Ministry of Works have been most helpful in seeing that we get the best available equipment. We are satisfied that, generally speaking, the standard is good.
I am glad to have had this opportunity of assuring the House and the public at large that the service is being organised on a thoroughly efficient basis. It will be my duty, on the direction of my noble friend to see that this service which might sometimes be termed "a sleeping partner," is kept efficient, and is given the opportunity of encouragement and competition, so that we may make it the service which we ought to have. My hon. and gallant Friend had great experience of this matter in the Royal Air Force. May I say that we have no peacock's feathers in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. We shall be glad to have the assistance, the criticism and the investigation of any hon. Member, of this House, and, if any hon. Members would like to sec what is being done, we shall be delighted to grant them the facilities for doing so.

Orders of the Day — OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (SHORTAGE)

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I am very glad at this eleventh hour, or, should. I say, twelfth hour to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House and of the Board of Trade to a very serious obstacle which is confronting thousands of small enterprises today, both in London and in many of our great cities. I hope that it is not inappropriate that the last subject to be debated during this historic and memorable Session should concern small firms, many of which have contributed very greatly to our economic fortunes in the past.
The problem of the acute shortage of office accommodation, and the resulting hardships to many small business firms, which I wish to raise, was first brought to ray notice by some of my own constituents of Lewisham who have their normal residence there, but whose daily place of work is in the City and who, in the course of years, have come to own their own organisations, and to rent premises outside the Division. There are three elements in this problem centring around the shortage of accommodation. First of all, there are the very heavy increased rents which are being imposed without any check, legal or otherwise, upon tenants owing to the shortage of accommodation which itself has been affected by war circumstances. So severe are some of these increases in rent, as I shall show in the course of my remarks, that a number of small firms face ruin or extinction. The second grievance of office tenants is the fact that many of them find their leases terminated without any option or any safeguards at all, and they have nowhere else to go. Thirdly, where a tenant is successful either in retaining his old or in securing fresh accommodation, there is the most objectionable practice of demanding a very high premium.
I first drew attention to this problem in a Parliamentary Question on 26th November last year, and I followed it up by writing to the Board of Trade a letter giving some of the reasons which led me to feel that there was need for investigation and possibly for action. The Board of Trade said that they were aware of some increases in rent, but that they had to get sufficient evidence as to the need for action. I hope that in the course of the Debate I will be able to give them some evidence. I may say that since I first raised this matter, I have had letters from small business firms, not only in London but from all over the country.
One of the results of these prevailing hardships can very readily be seen if one takes a walk into our own City of London. Instead of finding it a busy hive of industry, contributing to the renewal of the economic life of our country, we find that in many parts there are large blitzed areas which are now only the haunts of artists painting the ruins made picturesque by willow-herb and evening primrose.

The need for providing accommodation for living purposes is, of course, most urgent and must come first; but, surely, some balance has to be maintained. It seems perfectly useless providing people with places in which to live if there are no places for them to work in. This is particularly a problem in places where there are great concentrations of population doing office, secretarial, managerial and professional work, in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and other cities which are affected in this way. The first grievance, as I have said, is that in contradistinction to tenants of ordinary dwelling houses, there is no security of tenure for the tenant of an office, and there is no restriction on the rent which may be charged. In consequence, buildings in the cities are changing hands at very inflated prices, and existing tenants are being turned out as their leases expire. People who have been conducting socially useful businesses for many years find themselves without accommodation and, therefore, are unable to continue. The second grievance which springs from this situation is the device, which I understand is perfectly legal, of demanding a high premium for what office accommodation is available. This has the advantage, from the point of view of the landlord who charges it, that he does not have to show it in his business accounts, and he pays no Income Tax on it, just as if he were winning a bet; whereas the poor unfortunate incoming tenant is not permitted to treat this ex premium as a rent, and it is deemed by the Inland Revenue officials as a capital asset.
I now come to the first suggestion. It would be out of Order for me to suggest that new legislation ought to be introduced to make premiums illegal, even if it were practicable to do it, and I realise that there are very acute difficulties in devising any legislation which would prevent this practice taking place between a person who feels he must pay a premium in order to get accommodation, and a landlord. But I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that his officers have talks with the board of Inland Revenue, to consider whether or not some redefinition of this type of transaction can be made. I understand that it might be arranged, without any new legislation, that if a premium is charged it should be treated as


rent and, therefore, chargeable to tax upon the person who receives it, and count as a normal business expense of the person who has to pay it. I think that is a bad solution, but as it would be out of Order for me to suggest any other I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have it considered. There used to be in the Board of Trade, when I had the honour to work there during the war, a taxation sub-committee of which I acted as secretary. On some occasions we had meetings with the Board of Inland Revenue. I am quite certain that this matter might well be tackled by that body if it still exists; and if it does not, there may be a case for resuscitating it.
I should like to give examples covering the two points I have made, because I think that that is the most effective way of bringing home what the situation means to hundreds of small firms. I do not want to give the names but I have the complete documents in my possession. I am not making wild or baseless allegations. I have the facts in every one of the four cases of hardship to which I want to refer.
Let us take the first case. It is that of a young man whom I will call "Mr. G." He set up just before the war as a designer and consultant. I am sure we are all very glad that a young man should, as a result of his own initiative, be able to get going in business for himself. This man took offices in Fleet Street—or, rather, I should say an office. He had only a table and telephone with which to start. He worked very hard and was employed by a large number of firms. His staff now includes some six artists and others, carrying on this good, useful work. A few months ago he was given notice, without any option. He was glad to get any premises during the war, and had not got them on the conditions he wanted; he had no legal safeguard. He has had to stop his work mainly to search for new accommodation. A short time ago he was offered an office of 900 square feet on a four-year lease with no guarantee, of course, that after the four years he could continue to stay there. The rent was £250 a year. He could manage to pay that, but it was undoubtedly grossly in excess of prewar prices. But in addition to that, he was quite blatantly asked by the estate agents for a premium of £2,500. It meant

that it was quite impossible for this young man, with his assets, to consider those premises. There was a suite of two rooms on a floor of the same building that he could have had provided he paid a premium of £1,250. That man has been searching for 12 months for premises and has been unsuccessful. He has worked extremely hard and has had all kinds of people searching for him. The outcome is that his energetic work for eight years in providing a really useful service is likely to be completely dissipated if some sort of accommodation cannot be found.
The second example, the details of which also are fully documented, concerns an old-established but small export merchanting firm. I would point out that many of these firms are small. The very fact that they have had to specialise, and that they have specialised successfully, means that they are of a small nature, for their work could not be done by large organisations. This small export business, with contacts in the Far East, has, over the course of years, built up a very considerable business. I will call the firm "Brown and Company," but the Parliamentary Secretary can have full details if he so desires. They occupied a small office in London for the rent of which they paid, until a few months ago, £13 a quarter. The building was sold last October, and they immediately had notice to quit or to pay three times the rent per quarter, namely, £39. They wanted to move elsewhere, but they could not, and very reluctantly agreed to pay the increased rent. Since then the building has twice been sold over their heads, and in order to retain the occupancy of the building, with a lease of 21 years, they have been asked to take on a whole set of offices which they do not require, with the use of four additional rooms, at a rental of £700 a year. Probably this firm, with their assets, could pay £700 a year, but it means it would no longer be worth while, because it would entail paying over the whole of their proceeds in that fashion, and that firm has been forced to close down.
An additional feature I do not like in this type of case is that not only accommodation is let, but that a certain amount of furniture goes with the offices. In the example I have given, as soon as the building had been sold the furniture was also sold, so that before the firm had


taken its books and ledgers out, the office tables and desks had gone.
My third example concerns a firm of a rather similar character, namely, an exporting firm with a useful trade to this country in foreign markets. They occupied two small offices at a rent of £27 a quarter. I think that the landlord in this case must have been a descendant of Scrooge, for on 25th December they received an order either to move or to pay £82 per quarter; in other words, an increase in rent of 300 per cent. Again, this firm could not afford it, but they managed to get accommodation with friends of theirs in another office building not far away. They thought they were happily settled, but now that building has been sold, and both concerns will have to find alternative accommodation or be forced to close down. I apologise to the House for these details, but I think precise examples are much more telling evidence than anything else.
The last example concerns a man whom I shall call Mr. "F," who rendered very valuable services to many firms in the City for over 30 years. Recently the building in which he worked was sold, and he was turned out with his staff after a court order. He was offered, first of all, two rooms, with floor space of about 500 square feet, at the top of the building, for a period of three years—the unexpired portion of the lease. He was told he could have those two rooms at what, I suppose in present circumstances, is not an unreasonable rent, but again provided he paid a premium of £800. There was no certainty that at the end of the three years he would be able to retain possession, and, as he pointed out to me, with Income Tax at its present level, he would have to earn about £1,500 in order to find the money for the premium alone, before he could get possession. Among other offers which this particular individual received was one of two rooms on the second floor of a building in Clerkenwell. One room was 15 feet by 15 feet, and the other 12 feet by eight feet six inches; the rent asked was £284 per annum, exclusive of rates, plus a premium of £395.
Since I first raised this matter I have had innumerable examples brought to me of this kind of racket which is going on in London, Birmingham, Glasgow and other

of our large cities. It affects thousands of small firms, and is a matter which the Board of Trade, as the guardian of trade, ought particularly to consider. I have three or four suggestions to make. I have already made a suggestion about this very objectionable form of additional payment called a premium. In addition to that, there ought to be some way of freezing rents. Again, I should be out of Order if I suggested that some form of new legislation was necessary.
I am advised that it might be possible to extend the action of rent control tribunals, in certain circumstances, to cover office accommodation. If we could dc that, it would be possible to give some stability and permanency to these small business firms, who at present do not know when they may be faced with extortionate increases in rents. It would bring a welcome permanency into their commercial life, and would enable them to make arrangements for the future. I ask, therefore, whether that proposition has been considered, and if not, whether the Board of Trade will consider some other kind of action, so that stability may be given to these tenants, and so that they will not have to face these repeated rises in rents. Thirdly, I suggest there are many unusable buildings which could be made useful at the expense of a relatively small amount of labour and materials. I went into some buildings not very far from Blackfriars Bridge the other day which could be made, not into first-class business premises, but into better alternative premises for those firms whose history I have been discussing in this Debate. I am wondering whether there could not be more drive along these lines.
My final suggestion is in connection with additional accommodation. If additional accommodation could be provided, it would bring about most desirable results. How can that be done? I am wondering whether it would be possible to allow the erection of some sort of prefabricated buildings on blitzed sites. A number of local authorities have now very nearly come to the end of their temporary housing requirements, and there must be some existing productive capacity of temporary buildings in the country. I have made inquiries in regard to the purchase of huts from surplus Government stores which would be quite suitable


for office purposes for small firms. These huts could be purchased at about £100. I know there are snags which immediately arise in pursuing this course. It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain sites in the City, because the ground landlords naturally are very anxious that there shall be no delays when it is possible to start permanent buildings; they feel that if there is a temporary structure on the land, a considerable time might elapse before they can get possession to build. The result is that there is great reluctance on the part of ground landlords to allow temporary structures to be erected on their land, and even if they agree to a temporary structure being put on their land, there is a pretty heavy ground rent; for example, for a £100 hut of the type I have mentioned which is something like 25 ft. by 12 ft., an insurance company wants £500 a year for three years, with no certainty after that period has elapsed of the firm being able to continue their occupancy.
The Government ought to make some announcement that the building of office accommodation is not likely to take place for five or more years. I am wondering whether it would not be possible, under the Town and Country Planning Act, for the Board of Trade, in co-operation with the local authorities, to take over, for temporary development, certain blitzed sites for a period of five years. It would mean that the installation costs could be shared among a group of firms, and that these individuals would have to pay far less rentals than at the present time. Installation costs in the case that I have just mentioned of the £100 temporary hut, are heavy. In addition to the £500 a year required for rent, the cost of connecting the office with drains and services, if done by one firm which had to prepare a concrete raft and various other things, would work out at something like £600. There again, no small firm could afford to pay that plus installation expenses. If it were done in consultation with the City of London authority, in the case of London, or with the other appropriate authority, it should be possible for a whole area to be serviced simultaneously, which would obviously reduce the cost to the individual tenant. The result would be three-fold. Many firms would obtain some temporary accommodation for a period of not less than five years; the fact that accommodation was available should have some effect on the

high rents being charged now; and the local authorities would benefit because they could charge rates for the premises and obtain some revenue for land which is now idle and making no contribution at all.
It seems to me to be vital that speedy action should be taken by the Government to restore our commercial life to its fullest extent. Many of these small but highly specialised firms have contributed a great deal to our national life in the past and I believe that many of them can do much more, but they find themslves faced from day to day with this ever recurring threat and apparently no one is there to protect them. I feel that it is the function of the Board of Trade to act on behalf of small firms who are defenceless as circumstances are today. It is a matter which the Board cannot ignore and I shall wait with interest to hear what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.

5.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am well aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in this matter. He, together with some other hon. Members, has been very active in this connection for quite a long time, and I hope that these activities will be appreciated by those on behalf of whom they are undertaken. What he says is quite true, and at a time like the present when we are doing our utmost to stimulate the trade and interest of the country and to expand our commerce——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am at fault as much as he, but as this is the second occasion on which he has addressed the House he must ask leave to do so.

Mr. Belcher: I had overlooked that, Mr. Beaumont, and it is with your permission and that of the House that I wish to speak again. It is not my desire that I should bother the House unduly with my speeches, particularly on the last day, before the Recess but this is something which has been thrust upon me rather than sought by myself. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) has said, that we should be doing all we can at present to stimulate our trade and industry and to expand our commerce. It is also undoubtedly true that there is a considerable shortage of premises of the kind to which


he has been referring, as well as of housing premises and the like.
We have received at the Board of Trade since VE-Day something over 100 complaints or representations arising from the fact that, unlike the occupant of the controlled dwelling, the business tenant has no security outside the terms of his lease or tenancy agreement. He has no security against a landlord who wishes either to raise his rent or to give him notice to quit, and the cases which have been brought to our attention have included office premises, business premises of various kinds, shops, garages and small industrial premises. A large number of these cases have come to our notice through Members of Parliament, and we have had some 14 Parliamentary Questions on the subject, all indicating that there is very considerable feeling about it. So much so that people have been stirred to get into touch with their Members of Parliament, and the Members concerned have thought the matter of sufficient importance not only to write to Ministers at the Board of Trade, but, in addition, to raise the matter in this House by means of Parliamentary Questions.
In Scotland there has been a very considerable outcry, and as a result of a discussion which took place in the House about retail shop premises the Secretary of State for Scotland, as my hon. Friend knows, set up in April of this year a committee of inquiry which has still to report. In England and Wales, among the representations we have received, quite a number have concerned retail shops, but there has been an equal if not greater prominence given to offices and small industrial premises. That would be the case particularly in London, of course, and especially in the City of London.
It is not easy for me to deal with this matter fully and still remain in Order, for the obvious reason that we do not possess the power at the present time, so far as we can see, to deal with any abuse which may be brought to our notice, and that I would not be allowed by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go into the question of obtaining such powers. As to the extent of the problem, we have little evidence outside the correspondence and the Parliamentary Questions to which I

have referred. I have no doubt that if we were to set up a committee of inquiry we should find a very much larger number of cases than those which have been brought to our notice. It would be foolish to deny that some tenants of business premises have suffered very acutely indeed. In my public life and in my private life I have come across these cases, particularly in London and in the more sought-after parts of London.
My hon. Friend has made some suggestions. He suggested that officials of the Board of Trade might have talks with the Board of Inland Revenue about including premiums—I do not like these premiums any more than does my hon. Friend—as rent and allowing to the tenant a claim for relief from tax as a business expense. This is the first time that the suggestion has been made to me, and I will certainly go into it and see that the talks do take place, in order to discover whether anything can be done along those lines. I do not feel particularly happy about taking any kind of action which will encourage the extension of what I regard as the not too desirable practice of asking for premiums. It may well be that if action were taken along the lines which the hon. Member has suggested, instead of doing what he and I want, namely, ensuring fairness to the tenant of business premises, we might be encouraging the extension of this not very desirable practice of premiums, and the giving it a façade of legal responsibility. I will, nevertheless, certainly look into the suggestion.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the freezing of rents. That has been tried previously. In the period 1920–21, business premises were included in the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act. I understand that experience then was not particularly happy. It carried difficulty for the landlord, and the possibility of some unfair discrimination, in view of the rights and opportunities of other potential occupants. It is extremely difficult. Perhaps the difficulty does not occur to the same extent with a tenant of a dwelling house, because it is fairly easy to decide who ought to be the tenant and what ought to be the rent. In the case of premises which are to be occupied for business purposes, it is not easy to decide among tenants A, B and C which of them, from the point of view of national importance, is the right tenant of the premises.


I understand that the experience in 1920 and 1921 rather suggests that that might be the case.
The house-owner is more vulnerable than the business man. The business man may be able to deal with the situation created of having to pay an increased rent by increasing his own prices or by doing something to increase his turnover. Again, the domestic householder is frequently, I should have thought, in a more difficult position than the business man because his choice of premises is in many cases more limited. However, like the other suggestion made by my hon. Friend, I am certainly prepared to give it further consideration and see whether anything useful can emerge.
My hon. Friend then spoke about making small additional repairs to existing premises to bring them into use or to extend their use as business premises. He will know as well as I do what the difficulty is there. All over the country there are clashes between rival claimants for the very restricted supplies of building materials available. In some parts of the country the emphasis is on the building of factories, as in the development areas, but in other parts like London the emphasis is all the other way—restriction on the building of industrial premises and concentration of the available building labour and materials on the provision of living accommodation for the people. While I quite agree that it is altogether possible that something might be done by way of extensions to or adaptations of existing premises, I would not hold out any hope that we can meet this very widespread and difficult problem altogether by the extension or the adaptation of existing premises; but it shall certainly be looked at.
There was also the interesting suggestion that the Board of Trade, together with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the local authorities, might go into the possibility of taking over blitzed sites for the erection of prefabricated business premises. I remember, as my hon. Friend does, that during the war years when, as in the City of London, vast quantities of office premises were destroyed in the blitz, temporary offices made their appearance almost over-night, including inquiry offices to which people could go if they wanted to do business with a firm whose premises had completely

vanished during the night. That was a remarkable example of improvisation, and I take it that is the kind of thing my hon. Friend suggests. I am so anxious to meet my hon. Friend in this matter and to do all I can to assist these people who do not at present have the accommodation they need that I will certainly ask officials of the Board of Trade if they will inquire into the possibility of any such developments.
The real answer to this question, whether the extortion of exorbitant rents, or the asking of a premium, or the inability of a business house or an individual business man to have the accommodation he requires, must in the long run be the provision of suitable and sufficient accommodation for the needs of our business and commercial communities. Once there is a sufficiency of the right type of premises, at least two of the evils will tend to disappear of their own accord. When it is fairly easy for a firm to get the premises it requires, it will be in that degree more difficult for the rapacious landlord to demand a premium or a rent higher than is really economic having regard to the nature of the premises.
I am certain that the long-term solution, whatever we might do in the meantime to deal with the more pressing and immediate difficulties, must be the provision of a sufficiency of suitable accommodation. I agree that the cases which have been brought to my notice by my hon. Friend and in Parliamentary Questions and by letter indicate the existence of a very disagreeable feature in our commercial trade. We think that it should be an endeavour of the Government, whatever Department is involved—in this case the Board of Trade—to do everything we can to assist in this matter. Because we do not possess, so far as we can see at the present time, legislative power to deal with this matter, it is not easy to give encouragement to those who hope for immediate alleviation.
My hon. Friend has performed, I am sure, a most useful public service by bringing up this matter on the Floor of the House. I am extremely grateful to him for his interest as, I am sure, will be all who are concerned with the encouragement of business, trade and industry in this country. I find his suggestions interesting, and I give the House a promise that I will take them, together


with a report of the Debate, back to the Board of Trade. We will use our utmost endeavour to see if it is possible to adopt any or all of his suggestions or the suggestions any hon. Member may care to put to us on this matter. It is so important that we will deal with it very seriously indeed, as it is our desire, that as, I am sure, it is the desire of the House, to do everything that we can to encourage trade and industry, particularly at the present time.

Orders of the Day — AIR TRAVEL (SAFETY)

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I be allowed to use a few minutes of the concluding stages of this Session to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for the spirit in which he has responded to the appeal that the Government and the Treasury should take a broad view of the necessity of spending a greater sum on securing the protection of the public who are travelling under Civil Aviation plans. I speak as a member of the travelling public who is fortunate enough to be able to travel to Scotland tomorrow morning in a few hours. I can leave London at 10 o'clock and arrive in Prestwick at about 2.30. It makes all the difference in the world to those of us who are travelling to and

from Scotland on Parliamentary duty to be able to travel with the minimum amount of fatigue and inconvenience.
We want the public to be assured that air travel is comparatively safe. We shall feel a greater sense of reassurance now that we have had that very generous reply from the Ministry of Civil Aviation that there is not to be parsimonious cutting down of expenditure on research on safety so far as the civil aeroplane is concerned. We are asking for only a small fraction of a sum of money to be spent on the civil aeroplane compared with what has been spent on the R.A.F. and on aeroplanes which we hope will never be used again for the purpose of destruction. There has been too great a casualty list in the development of the aeroplane. We know in the West of Scotland, and we know in Prestwick, for example, that aeroplanes went out over the Atlantic and crashed over the Island of Arran, where there are monuments on the lonely summits of that beautiful island to people who crashed and who went to their deaths as pioneers in the enterprise which we know is going to mean a great boon in the future.

It being Six o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, till Monday. 20th October.

Orders of the Day — ERRATUM

In Division No. 383, Col. 2477, the name of Mr. J. Diamond should be omitted from the Noes.